9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (4) TMI 472X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the relevant years 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79, under a bona fide mistake, did collect such surcharge. The sale of cement took place at Madukkarai, which was not notified as a suburban area for the purpose of applicability of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Surcharge) Act, 1971, and collection of surcharge thereunder. There was an ambiguity entertained both by the Revenue and the petitioner in this b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of illegal exactions. The pronouncement of this Court was rendered only on 9th January, 1984. For the present year, the Revenue has chosen to impose penalty on the petitioner under section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act (1 of 1959), hereinafter referred to as the Act, on the ground that the collection of surcharge was illegal under the provisions of the Act. The initial imposition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the Act. If I take note of the facts that have transpired in the present cases, I have to uphold the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Revenue itself levied surcharge on the petitioner in respect of sale of cement at Madukkarai, even though it was not permissible in law. When the petitioner realising the mistake, wanted refund, for the earlier years, that was resisted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the imposition of penalty in the instant cases. A Bench of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Sasman and Company [1984] 57 STC 160, has also, on the ground of mutual mistake, held that the levy of penalty was not warranted. The ratio of the Bench is certainly attracted to the facts of the present cases. Under these circumstances, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
