9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (2) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der challenge in the writ petition disposed of by the learned single Judge on March 15, 1993. 2.. The main question to be decided in this appeal is whether the ingredients of the provisions contained in section 45A are attracted in this case so as to levy of penalty on the petitioner as prescribed therein. The portion of the said section which is relevant for the present purpose is extracted hereunder: "45A. Imposition of penalty by officers and authorities.-(1) If the assessing authority or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner is satisfied that any person,- ................... (d) has submitted any untrue or incorrect return; or ................... such authority or officer may direct that such person shall pay, by way of penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort of the goods. From the account books and other documents available in this case it has sufficiently come out that the assessee had no prior foreign contract or orders to which the purchase during the year 1984-85 was related. It is revealed that the assessee had one contract No. 22/80 dated January 10, 1985 during the year. There is no dispute with regard to this point. Since all the purchases were made prior to the above contract, the assessee is not entitled to claim exemption under section 5(3). However, in the return the appellant has claimed exemption in respect of the entire purchases made during the year. Therefore it is evident that the annual return submitted in form 8 is an untrue and incorrect return as contemplated in clause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst the said order was dismissed by the learned single Judge. 5.. In this writ appeal, with great respect we agree with the findings entered by the learned single Judge. In this case we do not see any reason for the assessee to contend that the penalty levied is in any way disproportionate to the offence alleged. Such contention was not advanced before the learned single Judge. We feel, this is not a fit case where doctrine of "proportionality" or "Wednesbury" principle can be applied for fixing the quantum of penalty because there was deliberate and systematic defrauding of revenue from the beginning of the assessment year itself. In this case it is not possible to argue that there was no fraudulent intention to evade the payment of ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
