9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (7) TMI 507X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the penalty of Rs. 8,537 imposed on the assessee under section 17(3)(c)(ii) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958 was proper and legal?" 2.. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee deals in sales of vehicles and their parts and implements. For the period from July 1, 1982 to June 30, 1983, his books of accounts were found defective and best judgment assessment was made by the assessing officer. This process resulted in determination of the turnover at a figure higher than shown in the books of accounts. The deduction claim of tax-paid goods was not allowed to the extent of Rs. 60,272. The appellant submitted the third quarterly return late by eigh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der sub-section (2) for any period in the manner and by the date prescribed thereunder or while furnishing the return fails to furnish along with the return, the proof of payment as required by sub-section (1-A)......." 6.. The counsel for the applicant submitted that after deciding the aforesaid case, the Full Bench of the Tribunal has taken the view in case of Himmat Steel Foundry Limited, Kumhari v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1991] 7 TLD 75 that penalty under section 17(3)(b) of the Act cannot be imposed for non-payment or late payment of monthly tax as provided under rule 27(2) of the Rules and has set aside the penalty imposed by the lower authority. 7.. We find that the Full Bench took the view as under: "It is an accepted princip ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 22(1) and (2) of the Act, and rule 27(2). These provisions stand on different footing. The rule prescribing for monthly payment of tax can still operate without destroying the provisions of section 22(1) and (2) of the Act. Since rule 27(2) is not a part of section 22(1) and (2) of the Act, the breach of rule 27(2) is punishable only under rule 69(a) being a violation of rule and not of the law." 8.. It appears from the statement of case that the penalty was imposed for non-payment of monthly tax in time. The late submission of the return seemed to be an incidental question. 9.. Nothing is urged before us to show that the view taken by the Full Bench of the Tribunal is erroneous in law. The factual position is not shown to be different ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
