1978 (6) TMI 159

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 74, the appellant, who is a registered dealer at the time when he sold jaggery which attracted tax at the point of purchase and not at the point of sale, collected such tax and admittedly disclosed the same in the bills issued by him. The assessing officer therefore was satisfied that the appellant as a registered dealer not only contravened the provisions of section 22(1) of the Act, but also that such contravention attracted the penal provision under section 22(2) of the Act. On appeal by the assessee, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cancelled the penalty. The Board of Revenue in its suo motu power of revision restored the order of penalty. The present tax case is against such order of the Board of Revenue. "Factually it has been fo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of sale. The bills issued by the appellant showed that he sold jaggery to the purchasers from whom he charged not only commission (a self-styled expression used by the appellant) but also collected as tax an independent amount and this is said to represent sales tax of 5 per cent on the total consideration as shown in the bill. It cannot be pretended by the appellant that the adoption of the percentage of five in the bill of sale is an imaginary figure. It is also not in dispute that the purchase tax on jaggery is five per cent at the purchase point. Obviously, therefore, the registered dealer, who is presumed to know the law and who is therefore deemed to be aware of the provision, that the rate of tax at the point of purchase of jaggery a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... way of penalty a sum not exceeding one and a half times such amount. Placing accent on the provision that the penalty should not exceed one and a half times the amount collected, it is contended that the levy of penalty at one and a half times at all times should not be automatic. Though it is not necessary for us to express any opinion on this question in this case, yet, we are not satisfied that the Board of Revenue, when it imposed penalty which the assessing authority itself thought of, was acting in any unreasonable way or in an arbitrary way. The argument on the quantum of penalty is, therefore, not sustainable. It is now rather wellsettled that in cases where there is a violation of the provisions of a taxing statute, the State has .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X