9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (1) TMI 284X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the business of running an oil mill. For this purpose the petitioner purchases groundnut which it uses in its mill for the production of oil. For the assessment year 1967-68, the petitioner filed returns for the first two quarters but did not deposit the advance tax as laid down in section 10(4) of the Act. For the third quarter, the petitioner also filed the return and deposited advance tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was urged on behalf of the petitioner that as laid down in Hansraj Choudhri v. J.S. Rajyana, Excise and Taxation Officer (Enforcement) [1967] 19 STC 489, groundnut was not an oil-seed and in any event since the stage of levy had not been prescribed in the Act, no purchase tax was payable by it. The last argument was raised on the basis of a decision of the Supreme Court reported as Bhavani Cotton ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or all the four quarters in the manner done by the Assessing Authority? (3) Whether penalty can be imposed under law prior to the assessment and without service of notice under section 11(7)(a)?" After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that question No. (1) deserves to be answered in favour of the petitioner. It is settled law that a penalty can be imposed on a de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ime, it would, according to me, be a sufficient cause for him not to deposit that tax. It would be immaterial if instead of saying that he was not liable to pay the said tax, he merely stated that the levy of that tax was in dispute and this Court had stayed the assessment and recovery of that tax in a number of cases. 10.. It may be mentioned that this very view was taken in three Bench decis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
