9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (11) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting aside the penalty imposed under section 16(1)(c) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, when admittedly returns were filed late? Brief facts of the case are that sales of certain goods were effected by M/s. Premnath Motors (P.) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the dealer") during the year 1965-66, but the same were returned by the purchaser during the year 1966-67. The first question mentioned above has to be determined as to whether the prices of goods sold during the year 1965-66, and returned by the purchaser to the dealer during the year 1966-67, could not be included in the taxable turnover. The above question is already concluded by a decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the assessment proceedings for the financial year subsequent to the financial year in which the sales took place." It has thus been clearly held by the Supreme Court that a deduction cannot be claimed in the assessment proceeding for the financial year subsequent to the financial year in which the sales took place. The question No. (1) is, therefore, answered in the negative and it is held that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Board was not justified in holding that the prices of goods sold during the year 1965-66 and returned by the purchaser to the dealer during the year 1966-67 could not be included in the taxable turnover of 1966-67. The question is thus answered in favour of the department and against the dealer. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quarter was also deposited late. The assessing authority had thus imposed the penalty on account of gravity of filing the return late as well as by not depositing the entire tax amount in time and thereby causing loss to the State exchequer. In some cases the entire tax amount was not deposited even after the returns were filed. The Board of Revenue while deciding the special appeal took note of the only fact that the returns which were filed late and that being so the penalty was quashed. We have already mentioned above that in case the finding of the Board of Revenue is that the dealer was negligent in filing the returns late by 4 or 5 days, then of course the view taken by the Board of Revenue is correct. We have to decide the question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
