9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (11) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (3) of the Act was illegal. 2. The brief facts are that the appellant deals in beverages and was assessed to tax under the Act for the year 1972 (calender year). The returns were furnished in item. But on 30th Jan., 1973 the dealer submitted revised return for the first three quarters in which it was stated that delivery charges had incorrectly been included in the original returns and hence rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eeping in view the decision of the M.P. High Court in the case of National Garage. First appeal against the assessment was partly allowed by the Addl. AAC. The enhancement in turnover was set aside. But penalty under s. 173(3) was maintained. 3. Appellant s contention is that penalty under s. 17(3) could only be imposed in respect of returns submitted under s. 17(2) of the Act and it could not b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the revised return which was nearly double of the original return. Evidently revised return was submitted in that case in order to escape the liability under s. 43, and in that context it was observed by the Hon ble High Court that the assessee exposes himself to penalty under s. 17(3). In this case, however, it is clear that the assessee did not include certain charges in the turnover because ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
