9911796707
TMI Blog1962 (8) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rn for each quarter was due. In S.C.A. No. 375 of 1961 the assessment year is 1st July, 1953 to 30th June, 1954, and in S.C.A. No. 376 of 1961 the assessment year is from 1st July, 1954 to 30th June, 1955. In each of these two years the society was bound to make four returns. For the year 1953-54, we give below the following dates on which the quarters ended and the due dates for the returns: Return for the quarter ending Due date 1. 30-09-1953 . . . 31-10-1953 2. 31-12-1953 . . . 31-01-1954 3. 31-03-1954 . . . 30-04-1954 4. 30-06-1954 . . . 31-07-1954 The returns were due on the correspending dates in the next ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at section. The provisions of that section had come up for consideration before us in Jairam Parmar v. Sales Tax Officer, Nagpur(1), and similar penalties levied there had been declared bad for non-observance of the requirements of the proviso to section 16. In that case we had after considering the provisions of section 16 along with section 10(3) held: "It is clear that the proviso to section 16 governs the exercise of the power under section 10(3). Section 10(3) in its turn deals with two classes of cases. Firstly, the case where a dealer fails to comply with the requirements of the notice issued under sub-section (1), and secondly, where a registered dealer fails to furnish his return for any period within the prescribed time to the pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause the orders with which we were concerned in that case were passed prior to the date by which the entry at serial No. 11-A was brought into force, and rule 67 amended. The amendment which incorporated the entry at serial No. 11-A under rule 67 was made on 17th April, 1958, and therefore it could not govern the imposition of penalties in that case. In the present case, however, the orders imposing penalties are all long after the amendment and that has enabled Mr. Mudholkar, on behalf of the respondents, to invoke the entry at serial No. 11-A in his favour. We are unable to see however how even the entry at serial No. 11-A can possibly help the respondents or enable them to get over the plenary provisions of the proviso to section 16. No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .C. 477; 1962 N.L.J. 512. The proviso to the section clearly indicates that if the power of the Commissioner to impose a penalty under section 10(3) is delegated by him under the first part of section 16 to any person appointed under section 3 to assist him, then "such person shall not exercise the power without obtaining the previous approval of the Commissioner." In other words, no doubt, the Commissioner may by order in writing delegate any of his powers, particularly the power under section 10(3) to impose a penalty. But if he does so delegate his power to one of the classes of officers designated under section 3 to assist him, then before such a subordinate officer exercises that power he must obtain the previous approval of the Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gation of the powers of the Commissioner and the proviso says that if the power to impose penalty is delegated under the first part of section 16, then the person appointed under section 3 to assist the Commissioner to whom that power is delegated shall not exercise the power without obtaining the previous approval of the Commissioner. The proviso postulates that a valid delegation has already taken place and it is only when such delegation has been made that the proviso comes into effect. That shows that the proviso is making provision for a period of time subsequent to the delegation, and the proviso cannot possibly be interpreted to be a condition of the power to delegate contained in the first part of section 16. In fact, in the first p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
