9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (7) TMI 538X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hed any return as prescribed under the Act?" 2.. The statement of the case as also the orders of the Sales Tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, indicate that for the accounting year, 1969-70, the assessee-opposite party has filed a return for the quarter between 10th November, 1969 and 7th February, 1970, but for the remaining three quarters, however, no return was filed. The Sales Tax Officer, in regard to the quarterly return that had been filed, found that it was false and on that basis levied a penalty of Rs. 3,500 under section 43(1) of the Act. In regard to non-filing of the returns for the remaining three quarters, another penalty of Rs. 6,000 was levied by the Sales Tax Officer, under section 17(3) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Tribunal, but in the statement of the case, the Tribunal has specifically stated the case of the Commissioner of Sales Tax in para 3 of the order. It has been stated therein that the Revenue's case was that return was filed for one quarter only and that was found to be false. Penalty was imposed under section 17(3) of the Act for non-submission of three returns for three quarters. Penalty under section 43(1) of the Act was imposed because the one return filed was found to be false. It is thus apparent that even according to the statement of the case drawn up by the Tribunal, there is no dispute that it was a case where return had been filed for the first quarter, which was found to be false and no return had been filed for the rema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in Narain Swadeshi Weaving Mills v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax [1954] 26 ITR 765. 5.. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, on the reframed question, we are of the opinion that since the assessee-opposite party had, apart from not filing returns for the remaining three quarters, had also filed a false return for the first quarter, it was liable to penalty on both counts, namely, for not filing returns for three quarters under section 17(3) of the Act and for filing a false return in respect of the first quarter, under section 43(1) of the Act. 6.. Our answer, therefore, to the reframed question is that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that no penalty under section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
