9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (12) TMI 161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o as the petitioner), was assessed for the year 1969-70 by the Assessing Authority on 6th October, 1970. Earlier the Assessing Authority issued a notice under section 10(6) of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), for showing cause as to why penalty should not be imposed for the short deposit of purchase tax for the quarters ending 30th June, 1969, 30th Septe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was rejected by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals), Patiala Division, Patiala. Still dissatisfied, the petitioner preferred second appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal, which was rejected on 30th January, 1975. Thereafter, the petitioner presented an application under section 22(1) of the Act, requiring the Tribunal to refer to this Court a question of law arising from its orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al facts and the relevant observations out of that order read as under: "I find myself in agreement with the proposition of law cited by the learned counsel for the State. In the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1970] 25 STC 211 (SC), it is held that the question whether a penalty should be imposed or not for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s understandable. Further, failure to submit revised returns and permissible under section 10(5) is a circumstance that cannot be ignored. It is also obvious from the record that adequate opportunity was given and explanation of the assessee taken into consideration before the imposition of the modest penalty. I see no force in this appeal and accordingly reject it." From the aforesaid observatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
