9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (11) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces of the case, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the penalty of Rs. 3,000 imposed under section 27(2) of the Act with regard to the assessment for the year 1964-65 on the ground that penalty had already been imposed under section 19(1) of the Act in respect of the concealment of the same turnover? (2) Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the penalty of Rs. 2,000 imposed under section 27(2) of the Act in respect of the assessment for the year 1965-66 on the ground that penalty had already been imposed under section 43(1) of the Act in respect of the concealment of the same turnover?" 3.. Relevant facts as stated by the Tribunal are as follows: The non-applicant is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first appellate authority that the penalty under section 19(1) of the Act covered all the irregularities, and therefore penalty under section 27(2) for the same default was not justified. This contention was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner. The assessee went in further appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue (Tribunal) accepted the contention of the assessee observing that though legally penalty under section 27(2) could have been imposed for not issuing bills and cash memos in respect of the concealed sales yet "taking a practical view and in the interest of natural justice it was not proper to impose a further penalty in respect of the concealed turnover under section 27(2) of the Act when maximum penalty under se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot be said that section 27 is a repeated exercise of sections 19 and 43 of the Act which deal with concealment of turnover. Section 27 of the Act undoubtedly is meant partly to check concealment of turnover but it also serves the purpose of safeguarding the interests of the customers. In Pyarelal v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1971] 28 STC 130 this question was considered by this Court and it was held that in addition to the penalty imposed under section 43(1) of the Act the dealer was liable to penalty under section 27(2) of the Act also for not issuing cash memos or maintaining the counterfoils of the bills of sales. 8.. We therefore hold that the Board of Revenue (Tribunal) was not justified in setting aside the penalty of Rs. 3,000 impose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
