9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (2) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 57,286.00 on account of the decision of the Supreme Court in the Yaddalam's case[1965] 16 S.T.C. 231 (S.C.). However, in 1969, the Central Sales Tax Act came to be amended with retrospective effect resulting in tax being levied on betel-nuts. The petitioner was, therefore, bound to return the refunded tax. He made an application on 3rd February, 1975, that he may be permitted to pay back the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner of Commercial Taxes, the 2nd respondent herein, issued a circular dated 7th December, 1976, by which the Government clarified that no penalty should be imposed for tax which was due prior to 1st September, 1976. Thus, being aggrieved by the demand notice of the 1st respondent bearing the date 17th December, 1979, calling upon him to pay a sum of Rs. 10,613.19 as penalty under section 13(2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dul Shakur Umar Sahigara Co. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Additional Circle, Mangalore[1968] 21 S.T.C. 77; [1968] 1 Mys. L.J. 449. Their Lordships in that decision held that under section 13 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act the dealer became a defaulter only when he neglected to make payment of tax when it became due and not otherwise. They also held having regard to section 3-A of the Act, that a d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce with the Commissioner's order in his favour, then on 1st September, 1976, there were no tax arrears due by the petitioner. Section 3-A of the Act not only enjoins that the subordinate officers should obey the instructions of the Government but also that of the Commissioner. 6.. In this view of the matter, I have no hesitation to hold that the impugned demand notice at annexure C is without th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
