9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (9) TMI 563X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee-dealer and original respondent No. 1 to whom the proceedings originally related. 4.. Respondents Nos. 2-11 are the other legal representatives of the deceased Hari Narain. Hari Narain expired in January, 1980 and the partnership firm stood dissolved and in terms of section 9(3) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (RST Act) the respondents Nos. 1-11 were brought on record under orders of the High Court on the delayed application of the petitioner during the pendency of the case before it after condonation of the delay. 5.. Respondent No. 12 is respondent pro forma. 6.. The assessee-dealer-M/s. Chottey Lal Mahadeo the original respondent No. 1 and the present respondents Nos. 1-11 are hereinafter referred to as the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se failed to pay the tax due within the time allowed, or, (c) has without reasonable cause failed to furnish the return of his turnover or failed to furnish it within the time allowed...................." 10.. Section 16(1), RST Act was amended with effect from May 4, 1964. Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 16, RST Act remained the same, clause (c), however, now read: "(c) has without reasonable cause failed to furnish within the time allowed the prescribed return or statistics or other information required to be furnished by or under the Act,............" 11.. With effect from May 2, 1969 the phrase "the prescribed return or" in clause (c) and clause (b) in its entirety were deleted. 12.. Subsequent amendments are not rele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e department to show that this was not reasonable cause for delay in furnishing returns or paying tax. The third was that a joint penalty for late submission of returns and non-payment of tax could not have been imposed. It was conceded by the department before the Board that at the relevant time there was no properly constituted Circle "A". The learned Member Mr. K.S. Lodha, as he then was sitting singly, held that the assessee in these circumstances could not and need not have filed returns or paid tax legitimately and, therefore, the imposition of penalty under section 16(1)(c), RST Act, could not be sustained and the delay could not, in such confusion, be said to be without reasonable cause. It was further held that the penalty imposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at constitutes a reasonable cause in the given facts of a case is a question of fact and not of law and that the single Bench s decision was taken in the peculiar factual background of the case and did not raise any new or significant issue of law to warrant a reference being made to the High Court. 18.. On January 10, 1980 the petitioner moved an application under section 15(3A), RST Act, as it then stood, to the High Court for directing the Board to state the case and refer the question of law arising out of its order dated November 29, 1978. This application makes no reference to the Board s decision of November 22, 1979 but does mention that the Board had not disposed of the application seeking reference within the time-limit prescrib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not germane as against that order too even if made within the stipulated time an application seeking direction for a reference to be made lay to the High Court as it did on its failure to do so. It must, nonetheless, be said that it is perplexing, to say the least, that an application of January 10, 1980 did not refer to such a significant event that preceded it by nearly six weeks or that no effort was made even subsequently to bring it on record. The judgment of the Board of November 22, 1979 was brought to the Tribunal s attention by the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1-11 in the course of arguments. 24. Be that as it may, the case of the petitioner rests on the fact that the assessee set up the plea of the invalid constitution ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of tax and how much for delayed filing of returns; and (v) the question of what is reasonable cause is not a question of law but a question of fact. 27.. No question of law remained. The application for revision therefore, has no force and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed. This is a sales tax reference under section 44(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 at the instance of Revenue and following question of law has been referred by the Board of Revenue for answer by this Court: Whether, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Board was justified in holding that a vertical pump is covered by entry No. 12 of Part IV of Schedule II appended to the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958? ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
