9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (11) TMI 340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals-I), quashing the penalty of Rs. 90,000 imposed under section 16(1)(e) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (for short "the Act"). The petitioner submitted its monthly returns for the assessment year 1984-85. In the monthly return for the month of July, 1984 (from July 1, 1984 to July 31, 1984) the petitioner had correctly shown the sale of taxable tins of edible oil but it was by accounting mistake that the sales of 3,730 taxable tins of edible oil was wrongly posted in the ledger as tax-paid. No sooner the petitioner came to know of this mistake and discovered it, he filed revised return for the month of July, 1984, on September 11, 1984, showing the correct position of the sales of taxable tins of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act was made out. Consequently, the appeal was accepted and the imposing of the penalty was set aside. However, the levy of tax was maintained, though according to the petitioner he had deposited the said tax. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the Deputy Commissioner, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal under its order dated August 13, 1987, allowed the appeal and restored the penalty imposed by the Commercial Taxes Officer. A rectification application was filed and that too was dismissed. A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Bapna that a revision lies against the order dated August 13, 1987, if not against the order of rectification dated October 17, 1987 and the revision having been not pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1987, has said that "in the present case, of course, no evasion had been detected in the sense of a turnover altogether unaccounted for by conducting sales off the record". We are of the opinion that the mere fact that the amount of tax had not been deposited in time cannot lead to the inference that it was a case of concealment. The case of the petitioner was that it was due to wrong posting of the sales of 3,730 taxable tins of edible oil in the ledger of tax-paid, an accounting mistake crept in the return, those sales were shown as tax-paid sales. The plea raised by the petitioner cannot be said to be such, which could not inspire confidence. The mere fact that on September 11, 1984, seven days prior to the survey of premises, a revised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
