9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (9) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst the order of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes in Mysore made in Case No. S.M.R. 85 of 1970-71 dated 21st October, 1971, by which the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Gulbarga Division, Bellary, dated 17th January, 1970, was revised and a penalty of Rs. 3,000 was imposed on the dealer under section 10A of the Act for contravention of section 10(d). During the assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rga Division. Before the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, the dealer appears to have urged that the department had not proved mens rea which is required to be proved before levying penalty and, therefore, the levy was illegal. The Deputy Commissioner purporting to follow the decision of this court in State of Mysore v. S.S. Umandi[1969] 24 S.T.C. 11; 1969 Kar. L.J. 25., allowed the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ............." Section 10A provides for imposition of penalty in lieu of prosecution. The penalty under section 10 is attracted when a dealer after purchasing goods for any of the purposes specified in clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 8 fails, without reasonable excuse, to make use of the goods for any such purpose. It is undisputed that the dealer did not make use of the goods for the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal papers. It does not appear from the order of the Deputy Commissioner that any such excuse was pleaded even before him. All that it appears to have been urged was that it was for the department to prove mens rea in order to attract penalty. It was not argued by Sri Katageri that this court has laid down any such law. It was finally submitted by Sri Katageri that we may remit the matter to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
