9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (9) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es Tax Act, 1947: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and keeping the explanation to section 11(3) of the Act in view, the Tribunal was justified in knocking off the penalty?" 2.. The assessee is admittedly a dealer registered under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). For the quarter ending 30th June, 1973, the assessee made a return of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not have sufficient funds in its account to meet the amount under the cheque. The appellate authority also relied upon the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1970] 25 STC 211 (SC) where the Supreme Court indicated that though there was provision for imposition of penalty, it was not obligatory for the assessing officer to levy penalty unl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... admitted tax has to be paid before the return is made and if there be any excess tax due after assessment is made, it has to be paid in terms of section 13 of the Act. When a cheque is issued, until it remains valid it is the duty of the person who has issued the cheque to provide appropriate funds in his account to enable the cheque to be honoured when presented. The Tribunal appears to have proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Tribunal, in our view, had no justification to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1970] 25 STC 211 (SC) in a case of this type and to knock off the penalty by saying that there was no material placed on record by the assessing officer that on the date when the cheque was issued the dealer did not have sufficient funds in its acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
