9911796707
TMI Blog1965 (4) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s required to be filed by this firm were quarterly returns and for the year 1959-60, three quarterly returns were filed. A sum of Rs. 1,18,283-20P. was also paid in accordance with those returns. The assessment, according to the averments in the writ petitions, was finalised on 10th April, 1962, by the Assessing Authority, Amritsar, determining a sum of Rs. 1,38,287-84P. to be the tax. The balance was also duly paid off. For the year 1961-62, no returns were filed, with the result that a notice in Form S.T.XIV was issued on 3rd September, 1963, requiring the petitioner to explain the failure to file the quarterly returns. On 25th October, 1963, four quarterly returns ending respectively on 30th June, 1961, 30th September, 1961, 31st December, 1961, and 31st March, 1962, were filed and by an order dated 11th November, 1963, the Assessing Authority assessed the petitioner to a sales tax amounting to Rs. 1,14,055-40P. and a penalty of Rs. 5,000 under section 10(6) of the Act for not filing the returns in time and also for not paying the tax in accordance with law at the time due. This amount, according to the writ petition, was paid. Against the order imposing the penalty of Rs. 5,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tember, 1964, because the assessment file was not available in the respondent's office. On 29th September, 1964, the petitioner filed a written statement pleading that even the original order imposing penalty under section 10(6) was illegal, because no opportunity had been granted prior to the imposition of the penalty by the Assessing Authority on 11th November, 1963, and that the notice in question was the outcome of political vendetta arising out of the findings of the Das Commission. The petitioner at that time was not aware that the District Excise and Taxation Officer had moved the Excise and Taxation Commissioner on 6th July, 1964, for enhancing the penalty. The revision petition filed by the petitioner against the penalty (Revision Petition No. 667 of 1963-64) as also the proceedings in pursuance of the above notice were heard together on 29th September, 1964, and decision given on 2nd October, 1964, whereby the penalty was enhanced from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 1,14,055-40P. It is this order which is challenged in the present writ proceedings. In the application it is averred that the Assessing Authority did not give any opportunity of showing cause why the penalty under section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance, is the background for the imposition of the enhanced penalty. While enhancing the penalty, the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner has not come to the conclusion that the Assessing Authority was moved by any extraneous consideration in imposing the penalty, with the result that the interference was not called for. On the facts and circumstances of this case, it is averred, victimisation is quite clear and the petitioner has been made a scapegoat of political propaganda let loose in recent months by those who disagreed with the ex-Chief Minister. Shri Daljit Singh, the previous Excise and Taxation Commissioner had sworn an affidavit before the Das Commission that there were about 1,500 cases in Amritsar, which were pending, and that the petitioner's case could not be dealt with earlier. In view of this affidavit, so proceeds the writ petition, it was no fault of the petitioner and to impose a heavy penalty for not filing the returns in time is not justified. The respondent has, according to the allegation, abused his power. The notice issued by the respondent though described as suo motu action, in fact, was issued on the application of the District Excise and Taxation Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Rules 58 and 59 provide for the manner for preferring appeals and vide rule 62, these rules mutatis mutandis apply to revisions. The next challenge was based on the submission that Das Commission's report could not be looked at in this case for the purpose of enhancing the penalty. The third point emphasised the submission that each year is to be treated separately for the purpose of assessment and penalty and, therefore, the petitioner's conduct during the period of other years is really irrelevant and it is materially irregular to take this into account for determining the amount of penalty in a different year. Lastly, it was urged with vehemence that no opportunity had been given to the petitioner in the matter of imposition of penalty and section 10(6) was not complied with. The learned counsel cited Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice TendolkarA.I.R. 1958 S.C. 538. As against these contentions, the respondent's learned Advocate pointed out that the letter of the District Excise and Taxation Officer could by no means be treated as a revision; it was merely intended to draw the attention of the Excise and Taxation Commissioner to the perversity of the order imposing whol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of imposing penalty was, according to Shri Nehra, clearly given by the learned Commissioner. Above all, it was urged that a revision having, since the filing of the writ petitions, been preferred by the petitioners, this Court in its discretion should not go into the merits of the grievances on writ side. The counsel cited Messrs Khem Chand Vijay Kumar v. J.S. Malhotra[1963] 14 S.T.C. 821; A.I.R. 1963 Punj. 383., where it was observed that in the absence of serious and self-evident error of law manifestly apparent on the record showing patent illegality, the assessee should not on unsubstantial grounds be permitted to by-pass and ignore proper procedure under the statute for redress of grievances. In our view, it is the settled practice of this Court supported by various decisions of the Supreme Court that there should be exceptional circumstances to warrant the exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is not the object of this article to convert the High Court into an original or appellate or revisional Assessing Authority, whenever an assessee may feel inclined to attack an order of imposition of penalty on account of his default. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erly and impartially weighing the petitioner's explanation for omitting to submit the returns and to deposit the amount of tax due to the State in accordance with law, keeping in view the long range objective of taxing statutes and the recognised urgency of effectively checking their breaches and evasions. The distinction must also be drawn between an innocent excusable omission and a deliberate, planned and gainful breach of obligation, inspired by an air or attitude of superiority over the law, treating it with disrespect or scorn. In this context, it is also relevant to observe that administrative officers and civil servants in this Republic are assumed to be men of conscience and intellectual discipline, capable of discharging their duties fairly on the basis of relevant considerations uninfluenced by any personal or collateral factor of fear or favour, which conflicts with the impartiality of their solemn official duty or cuts across the rule of law. They cannot under the Republican law and traditions be hired and fired at the arbitrary whim or caprice of any authority, there being no "boss" to dismiss them in a fit of temper, and their security of tenure being reasonably guar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
