9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (10) TMI 260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1st June, 1973, to 20th October, 1973, were not entered in the duly assessed regular books of accounts. The Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Central Division I, Udaipur, seized the documents. A notice under section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (No. 29 of 1954) ("the Act") was issued to the dealer-assessee informing him regarding the reassessment of the business which has escaped assessment. The Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Central Division I, Udaipur, found that the sales of motor parts, kerosene, diesel and petrol amounting to Rs. 55,027.58 has escaped assessment. He, therefore, levied a tax of Rs. 6,518.17. A penalty of Rs. 13,000 under section 16(1)(e) of the Act was also imposed. The dealer-assessee lodged an appeal against the order dated 4th December, 1976, by which the tax was levied and penalty was imposed. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Udaipur, by his order dated 28th January, 1978, maintained the levy of tax, but he reduced the penalty under section 16(1)(e) to Rs. 6,518.72. Dissatisfied with the appellate order, the assessee filed a revision before the Board. The single Member of the Board by his order dated 15th Februar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aler-assessee (non-petitioner) and carefully considered the orders of the assessing authority and also those passed in appeal. We have to decide this revision on the question/questions of law, as envisaged by section 15(3) of the Act as substituted by the Amendment Act. It was strenuously contended by the learned counsel for the assessee (sic.) that the orders passed in revision by the single Member as well as in special appeal by the Division Bench of the Board holding that penalty should be imposed on the dealer-assessee under section 16(1)(n) of the Act are erroneous in law. This is stoutly opposed by the learned counsel for the dealer-assessee. Before the Division Bench of the Board, the following contentions were raised: (i) that the single Member of the Board wrongly treated sales for Rs. 25,594 as having been of tax-paid goods and wrongly directed imposition of penalty only on the balance amount of Rs. 29,433.58; (ii) that the assessee has committed an offence under section 16(1)(e) of the Act and as such it was wrongly treated as an offence under section 16(1)(n) of the Act. The only question of law, therefore, that crops up for our consideration is whether on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as completed on 28th May, 1973. In other words, the return that was filed by the dealer-assessee in respect of the aforesaid period did not contain the transactions of the diary and the documents that were seized, and so the transactions contained in the diary and the documents were concealed by not disclosing them in the return. It follows, therefore, that the dealer-assessee concealed the particulars of the turnover in the return that he filed, or in other words, he did not disclose the correct turnover by mentioning the transactions that were contained in the diary and the documents. He supplied inaccurate particulars of the transactions relating to the turnover of the period in question in the return. To such a situation, express provision for imposition of penalty has been made in section 16(1)(e) of the Act, and when section 16(1)(e) is applicable it is futile to contend that the residuary provision contained in section 16(1)(n) applies. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the single Member of the Board in revision and the Division Bench of the Board in special appeal misdirected themselves in law when they opined that as the dealer-assessee did not mention th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the language used in section 271(1)(c) which is more or less the same as used in section 16(1)(e) of the Act, it is abundantly clear that before levying penalty under section 16(1)(e) of the Act all the circumstances of the case have to be taken into consideration in the penalty proceedings and if from those circumstances conscious concealment or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars are established then and then only penalty can be imposed, Having regard to the finding of the Board on the question relating to penalty under section 16(1)(e) of the Act, we are of the opinion that the Board has not given its pointed attention to this aspect of section 16(1)(e) that either there should be conscious concealment or there should be deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars in the return." In Murarilal Ahuja Sons' case [1986] 61 STC 393 (Raj) (D.B. Sales Tax Case No. 31 of 1984 decided on 27th August, 1985), Commissioner of Incometax v. Ramdas Pharmacy [1970] 77 ITR 276 (Mad.) and J.P. Sharma and Sons v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajasthan [1985] 151 ITR 333 (Raj) were considered. The latter case is of this Court. As the Board in the special appeal reached the con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
