9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (8) TMI 334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct") made by the applicant-assessee, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law to this Court for its opinion: "Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified in holding that penalty of Rs. 4,000 imposed under section 43(1) of the Act was proper when the assessment period involved was 1961?" 2.. The material facts giving rise to this ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x separately collected did not form part of consideration or price of goods. The learned Tribunal, however, rejected the submission of the assessee and maintained the order of penalty by its order dated 30th March, 1982, passed in Appeal No. 196-PBR-79. 5.. On an application under section 44(l) of the Act filed by the assessee requiring the Tribunal to make a reference to this Court, the learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f section 43(1) as it stood in the year 1961 in unamended form, however, envisaged mens rea to attract penalty. This section 43(1) in 1961 empowered the Commissioner or appellate authority to impose penalty if the Commissioner or the appellate authority in the course of any proceeding under the Act was satisfied that a dealer had deliberately concealed his turnover in respect of any goods or furni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the facts and circumstances of this case and he cannot be said to have deliberately concealed his turnover or furnished false return so as to become liable for penalty under section 43(1) of the Act as it existed in the year 1961. 8.. In view of the discussion aforesaid, we are clearly of the opinion that the assessee was not liable to penalty under section 43(l) of the Act and the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
