9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (12) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the course of its business, the applicant had effected sales to the Railways as also to the Posts Telegraphs Department charging sales tax at the concessional rate of 3 per cent, under Notification No. 958655-V-ST dated 28th March, 1969, on the ground that these sales were covered by the said notification and were liable to be taxed at the concessional rate of 3 per cent. The assessing authority by its order dated 19th January, 1976 rejected the claim of the applicant for levy of sales tax at the concessional rate of 3 per cent on the sales effected to the Railways and the Posts Telegraphs Department. The assessing authority, therefore, levied tax at the full rate on the sales effected to the Railways and P T Department. The assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld be under the bona fide belief that freight did not form part of the sale price and, therefore, the non-inclusion of the freight in the taxable turnover would not amount to deliberate concealment. The penalty was, however, maintained in respect of payment of tax on the sales effected to the Railways and P T Department. Against the decision of the first appellate authority, the applicant filed a second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 4th January, 1983, held that though there could be some doubt about the applicability of the concessional rate of 3 per cent in respect of the sales to the P T Department, there was no room for doubt in respect of the sales to the Railways which was undoubtedly engaged in commer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egal and justified?" The Board held that the question as to whether the assessing authority was competent to increase the amount of penalty from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 3,00,000 was not raised when the second appeal was heard. As regards the other question, the Board held that the finding that the assessee had furnished false returns was a question of fact and not a question of law. The application under section 44(1) of the Act submitted by the applicant was dismissed by the Board. Hence, the assessee has submitted this application. 3.. Having heard the learned counsel for the assessee and for the department, we have come to the conclusion that the question as to the competency of the assessing authority to increase the amount of penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
