9911796707
TMI Blog1971 (2) TMI 91X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1963, and 1st January, 1964, to 3rd November, 1966. The petitioner contested his liability as a dealer. Ultimately, his plea was rejected by the Sales Tax Officer and in his appeal against the first period it was held that he was liable to be registered as a dealer. This appeal was decided by order dated 29th August, 1966, which was served on the petitioner on 8th September, 1966. On this date, according to the petitioner, the matter having been finally decided, he applied for registration on 1st November, 1966, and was soon registered as a dealer. However, the petitioner was assessed to sales tax and the Sales Tax Officer after assessment for the second period imposed a penalty on him of Rs. 22,500. But on revision the Deputy Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed within time, penalty cannot be imposed against him. There the maximum penalty is Rs. 100. But under section 18(6) the penalty is one and a half times the tax which has been avoided and the penalty can be imposed if an opinion is formed that the dealer has wilfully failed to apply for registration. This necessarily means that the finding must be about the intentional avoidance of registration by the dealer in order to avoid payment of tax, and it is for that reason that the penalty here is proportionate to the tax tried to be avoided. In the present case, the penalty has been imposed under section 18(6) of the Act. Therefore, this penalty could be imposed only if the Commissioner was satisfied that the dealer was wilfully avoiding registr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction to impose a penalty, this court will not reject the petition merely because of the existence of an alternative remedy and perpetuate a wrong against the petitioner. Payment of such a large sum of penalty infringes a fundamental right of the petitioner when there was no jurisdiction in the Tribunals to impose a penalty. 7.. The result, therefore, is that this writ petition is allowed. The order of the Sales Tax Officer dated 16th April, 1968 (exhibit P. 2) and that of the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax dated 12th January, 1970 (exhibit P. 3) are quashed to the extent that they impose a penalty on the petitioner for non-registration within time. In all the circumstances of the case we direct the parties to bear their own costs. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
