9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (5) TMI 397X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed was dishonoured by the bank on May 19, 1992. Penalty proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for failure to pay the tax along with the return. In reply to the show cause notice, it pleaded that the cheque was wrongly dishonoured by the bank and that it had the requisite amount in its account with the State Bank of India. In support of this plea, the dealer produced a certificate dated June 17, 1992, from the State Bank of India, Mohali, certifying that the cheque had been returned inadvertently and that the amount was lying in reserve with it for payment of sales tax liability. The Assessing Authority after taking note of the bank statement produced before it by the petitioner found that the account of the dealer with Punjab Na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cumstances of the case, the mistake on the part of the bank can result in imposition of any penalty? (iii) Whether before imposition of penalty issuance of notice for affording opportunity of being heard is mandatory? (iv) Whether there is any provision for charging interest under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and whether the provision of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act can be applied for charging interest under the Central Sales Tax Act?" The Tribunal found that the issues decided by it were purely of facts and that no referable question of law arose from its order. The application was consequently dismissed. It is against this order that the dealer has filed the present petition under section 9(2) of the Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Bharat Electronics Ltd. v. State of Haryana [1994] 93 STC 461 (P H) in support of his contention. This case is quite different on facts and is of no assistance to him. In that case the bank defaulted by wrongly crediting the amount in the account of the Central Government and later when the mistake was discovered the entries were reversed and the amount was credited to the account of the State Government. In that case, the amount was lying with the bank but in the case before us, it has been found as a fact that on the date when the cheque was dishonoured the dealer did not have sufficient funds in its account at Mohali. Moreover, the certificate issued by the State Bank of India has been discarded by the authorities and this finding, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
