9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (9) TMI 318X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hereunder?" 2.. The dealer is registered under the Act. In respect of four years, i.e., 1970-71 to 1973-74, the dealer was assessed. Sometimes thereafter, the Sales Tax Officer issued notice to the dealer to show cause why penalty under section 9-B(3) of the Act shall not be imposed for having collected excess tax under the Act. In respect of three years, i.e., 1970-71 to 1972-73 notice was issued on October 10, 1977 and in respect of the year 1973-74 notice had been issued on June 25, 1977. Dealer's explanation not being accepted, penalty was imposed. 3.. The Assistant Commissioner has set aside the orders of the Sales Tax Officer for reconsideration of the question of quantum of penalty. The dealer, however, was not satisfied with it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tunity of being heard. (4) Any penalty imposed under sub-section (3) shall be without prejudice to any punishment that may be imposed under the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 25." 5.. Bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions indicate that no timelimit has been fixed by the Legislature for imposition of penalty under section 9-B(3) of the Act. This does not, however, give arbitrary power to authorities under the statute to initiate proceedings at their own whims or caprices. A statutory authority is required to act honestly, judiciously and diligently. When on account of long inaction and sudden exercise of power after long delay, by an authority, a dealer suffers, he may approach appropriate forum to get redress. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisions contained in that section." In the said decision proceeding for imposition of penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, was initiated alleging concealment of income. In the absence of any decision of the Supreme Court or of a higher Bench of this Court, the aforesaid principle is binding on us. 7.. In view of the discussion made above, our answer to the question of law is in the affirmative against the dealer by stating that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Sales Tax Tribunal was justified to hold that even if penalty proceeding was initiated beyond the period of three years prescribed for assessment proceeding, it is maintainable in the absence of any specific provision providing for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
