9911796707
TMI Blog1962 (7) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 13 of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957. The petitioner is a dealer under the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957. For our present purpose we are concerned with the assessments due for the financial years 1958-59 and 1959-60. Though the assessee duly submitted his returns in time, the assessment orders in respect of the above two years were made only on 8th October, 1960. The demand notices were served on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the respondent. He was only asked to make up the balance tax due according to his own returns. But the question is whether the petitioner has incurred any penalty under section 13 before 28th November, 1960. Section 13 reads as follows: "(1) The tax under this Act shall be paid in such manner and in such instalments, if any, and within such time, as may be prescribed. (2) If default is made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty till that date. As mentioned earlier, the order of assessment in this case was made on 8th October, 1960, and as per the demand notices the petitioner was required to pay the balance tax due on or before 28th November, 1960. But the learned Government Pleader contends that the petitioner became a defaulter within the meaning of the expression in section 13 in view of the requirements laid down ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g* is ours). Admittedly, no notice in Form 6 had been served on the petitioner. But the contention of the learned Government Pleader is that this proviso provides for two due dates, the first of them being the date of the submission of the returns and the second being the date prescribed in the notice in Form 6. But according to Sri V. Krishnamurthy, the learned counsel for the petitioner, this ru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he does not comply with the terms of that notice. For the reasons mentioned above, we are in agreement with the contention advanced on behalf of the assessee that the penalty demanded from him (which was calculated only upto November, 1960) is opposed to law. Therefore the order demanding penalty has to be quashed and the same is hereby quashed. The respondent shall pay the costs of the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
