9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (4) TMI 258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly stated the facts of the case are: The appellant is M/s. Modi Rubber Limited having its registered office at Modinagar, U.P. It started its branch depot at Bangalore on 19th June, 1975. It is a dealer in tyres and tubes. For the assessment period commencing from 19th June, 1975, to December, 1975, there had been delay on the part of the appellant in paying monthly taxes every month as required under section 12-B(1) of the Act. The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Assessment-I), Bangalore, issued a notice under section 12-B(2) of the Act calling upon it to show cause why penalty as provided in that provision should not be imposed. 3.. In reply to the said notice the assessee stated as follows: The company went into the market ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the view that the imposition of penalty of Rs. 15,000 appears to be not justified, because I am of the view that such imposition of penalty of Rs. 15,000 is contrary to the observation made by the Honourable High Court in Manilal Monaji Somayya's case [1973] 32 STC 541 and it is an imposition of penalty made without paying regard to the principles enunciated in that case. There is however default by the appellant in the payment in advance of monthly tax and notwithstanding the fact that I am satisfied that the appellant has submitted genuine grounds, nevertheless in the ends of justice the appellant should be imposed with a reasonable amount of penalty. On consideration of all the circumstances I am of the view that the imposition of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te order. 7.. Miss M.R. Vanaja, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the revenue, contended that as the delay in payment of tax during almost every month commencing from June to December, 1975, had not been disputed, it was not open for the appellate authority to interfere with the discretion exercised in fixing the quantum of penalty by the Assistant Commissioner and hence the order of the Deputy Commissioner was erroneous, and therefore the Commissioner was right in interfering with the said order. 8.. As pointed out earlier, the Deputy Commissioner, in the course of his order, had clearly recorded that he was satisfied that the appellant had not acted deliberately or in defiance of law or was guilty of contumacious conduct a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
