9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (9) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s: The respondent was assessed to sales tax for the period from 2nd November, 1964, to 21st October, 1965. An amount of Rs. 2,292.50 had been credited by the respondent as advance sales tax. As per the assessment order, dated 25th September, 1967, the respondent was assessed to a further sum of Rs. 365.15. Thus, the total assessment for the said period came to Rs. 2,657.65 out of which an amount of Rs. 2,292.50 had already been deposited as advance tax along with the quarterly return. The respondent, feeling aggrieved by this additional demand, preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. He did not deposit the balance of Rs. 365.15. However, by a notice issued to the respondent it was called upon to deposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or without penalty or against an order imposing a penalty shall be admitted by the appellate authority unless the tax with penalty, if any, or the penalty, as the case may be, in respect of which the appeal has been preferred, has been paid: Provided that the said authority may, if it deems fit, for reasons to be recorded in writing, entertain an appeal against an order of assessment with or without penalty or an order imposing penalty on payment of such smaller amount, as it may direct, which shall not be less than onethird of the total balance due from the dealer under the order of assessment with penalty, if any, or the order imposing the penalty, as the case may be." Section 38(3) as it stood before the amendment: "No first or second ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct-matter of the appeal. In our opinion, the amendment of the section as per the amendment dated 15th April, 1968, is merely by way of a further clarification and essentially, there is no difference between the section as it stood prior to the amendment and as it now stands subsequent to the amendment. 5.. In this connection, we might advert to the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in Nathulal Chhotelal v. R. M. Pathak, Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, RaipurMisc. Petition No. 435 of 1964 decided on 19th February, 1965. , wherein the learned Judges constituting the Division Bench observed as follows: "It is plain from sub-section (3) of section 38 of the Act that the assessee has to pay the tax (or such smalle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
