9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (5) TMI 309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred to as the "Central Act"). During the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78 the assessee opened a branch at Allahabad, which was being supervised by the assessee's Calcutta office. Under some legal advice the Calcutta office got the Allahabad branch registered separately as a dealer under the Act. The Allahabad branch had some depots in the eastern Uttar Pradesh. It has been alleged by the assessee that the Bareilly factory which was separately registered at Bareilly was not aware about the registration of the Allahabad branch. as a separate dealer. The sales figures were sent by the Allahabad branch and the depots attached thereto to the Calcutta office where the returns under the provisions of the Act were prepared and sent to Allahaba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he orders of imposition of penalty in all the cases, filed separate appeals under section 9 of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Sales Tax, Bareilly, who upheld the orders of the assessing authority but reduced the penalty except for the months of November and December 1976 and the penalty for the said two months was knocked off. The assessee feeling further aggrieved against the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), dismissing the eighteen appeals of the assessee in part preferred second appeals under section 10 of the Act before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals for the months of June, July, August and October 1976 and February 1977, allowed the appeals for the months of September 1976 and Marc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 31-8-1977 15-9-1977 30 days August 1977 30-9-1977 14-10-1977 30 days September 1977 31-10-1977 14-11-1977 24 days December 1977 31-1-1978 8-2-1978 14 days January 1978 28-2-1978 13-3-1978 30 days February 1978 20-3-1978 31-3-1978 17 days March 1978 30-4-1978 5-5-1978 25 days ------------------------------------------------------------------------ It would be relevant here to refer to the provisions of section 15-A(1)(a) of the Act which reads as under: "has, without reasonable cause failed to furnish the return of his turnover or to furnish it within the time allowed and in the manner prescribed, or to deposit the tax due under this Act, before furnishing the return or along with the return, as required under the provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... next limb of the argument of the counsel for the assessee is that the Tribunal has justified the imposition of penalty on the ground that the assessee did not file any application for extension of time for filing the return or depositing due tax. He contended that non-filing of application for extension of time could not be equated with the absence of reasonable cause. This Court in the case of Spencer and Company Ltd. 1980 UPTC 121, has also dealt with this aspect of the matter and has held that mere non-filing of application for extension of time could not be, equated with the absence of reasonable cause, which, according to me, is sound and proper proposition of law and as such this ground also falls to the ground and assuming that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a few days which is very negligible. He contended that the fact that the assessee got prepared drafts for few months even in advance though they were received later could not be also a ground for imposition of penalty under section 15-A(1)(a) of the Act. Mr. Kunwar Saxena, Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax, who was asked to assist the court as mentioned above in the absence of any Standing Counsel, has very ably assisted me and has referred to the four circumstances mentioned in the order of the Tribunal on the basis of which he asserted that the imposition of penalty was wholly justified. The first circumstance referred to in the order of the Tribunal is that the assessee had knowledge that the returns had to be filed within the specified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) as well as by the Tribunal. It has been vehemently urged on behalf of the Revenue that in the cases in which the returns were despatched prior to the due date of filing the returns though they were received later, the Tribunal has knocked off the penalty and the Tribunal has imposed penalty only in those cases in which the returns were despatched after the due date of filing the returns. The said argument has no legs to stand on and falls to the ground inasmuch as the returns for the month of September, 1976, which was to be submitted on 31st October, 1976, and was despatched on 1st November, 1976, the imposition of penalty in the said months was knocked off by the Tribunal and as such a desperate attempt was made on behalf of the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
