9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (6) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal, on behalf of the respondent-assessee, a contention was raised stating that the penalty levied by the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Rajapalayam, cannot be sustained inasmuch as the registration certificate was issued by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Rajapalayam. In other words, it was contended on behalf of the respondentassessee that the authority who issued the registration certificate alone was competent to levy penalty for violation of section 10(b) of the Act. That contention was accepted by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal on the basis that the ruling of the Supreme Court reported in State of U.P. v. Dyer Meakin Breweries Ltd. [1973] 31 STC 588, was to that effect. It may be mentioned that the Tribunal did not go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n respect of the sale to him of the goods, if the sale had been a sale falling within that sub-section: Provided that no prosecution for an offence under section 10 shall be instituted in respect of the same facts on which a penalty has been imposed under this section. (2) The penalty imposed upon any dealer under sub-section (1) shall be collected by the Government of India in the manner provided in subsection (2) of section 9 (a) in the case of an offence falling under clause (b) or clause (d) of section 10, in the State in which the person purchasing the goods obtained the form prescribed for the purposes of clause (a) of sub-section (4) of section 8 in connection with the purchase of such goods; (b) in the case of an offence fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on to initiate proceedings and levy penalty under section 10A of the Act on the ground that when the proceedings were initiated, it was the Sales Tax Officer, Lucknow, who was competent to initiate and levy penalty. On further appeal to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court observed as follows: "There is no dispute that the authority who granted the certificate of registration was the Sales Tax Officer, Ghaziabad. Therefore, prima facie, he was competent to levy penalty on the assessee. But it was contended on behalf of the assessee that on March 28, 1960, the registration before the Sales Tax Officer, Ghaziabad. stood cancelled and thereafter the assessee was registered before the Sales Tax Officer, Lucknow. That being so, the Sales Tax O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
