1977 (9) TMI 50

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , 1971. The gross turnover was determined as Rs. 14,433, the tax being nil. Thereafter the case was reopened under s. 19(1) of the Act on the basis of an application voluntarily submitted by the dealer, that he had done some business in ballast, the turnover of which was Rs. 19,350 and had not reported it earlier because he had considered it as job work. But it had been brought to his notice that .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appeal before the Tribunal under s. 38(2) of the Act. 2. The only point raised in this appeal is that penalty under s. 19(1) of the Act was unjustified and also excessive. Learned counsel for appellant argued that appellant had himself come forward and made this application for assessment of this turnover in respect of ballast. He did not even wait for the assessment but deposited the tax, as s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... efore, be an essential ingredient of this section also. Since in this case the dealer came forward of his own accord to have his case re-assessed and also paid tax even before the re-assessment, there is good reason to hold that there was no dishonest intention. Learned counsel for the CST argued that there was no question of any confusion in regard to tax liability in supply of ballast, and appel .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X