9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (8) TMI 557X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... General Sales Tax Act, 1963. A penalty of Rs. 16,50,000 has thus imposed on the petitioner for the year 1984-85. 2.. From April 1, 1984, the Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation was given the sole monopoly for the wholesale distribution of liquor in Kerala. Suitable amendments were made in the Kerala Distillery and Warehouse Rules, 1988, the Kerala Foreign Liquor (Storage in Bond) Rules, 1961 and the Kerala Foreign Liquor (Compounding, Blending and Bottling) Rules, 1971 enabling the Corporation to buy and store liquor in their bonded warehouse. On and from April 1, 1984 petitioner discontinued payment of excise duty and the corporation was remitting the excise duty. Prior to the formation of the Beverages Corpo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the petitioner and it will be forming part of the turnover of the petitioner. 4.. The next question is whether there was mens rea on the part of the petitioner in seeking to suppress the amount which would form part of the turnover. If an assessee does not include the particular item in the taxable turnover under a bona fide belief that he is not liable so to include it, it will not be possible to condemn the return as a false return inviting imposition of penalty. 5.. The Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1970] 25 STC 211 dealing with the provision on failure to register as dealer and penalty, it was held that an order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... position that payment of excise duty was the primary and exclusive obligation of the manufacturer and if payment be made under a contract or arrangement by any other person it would amount to meeting of the obligation of the manufacturer and nothing more. Payment of excise duty was a condition precedent to the removal of the liquor from the distillery and payment by the purchaser was on account of the manufacturer. According to normal commercial practice, excise duty should have been reflected in the appellant s bill either as merged in the price or being shown separately. In the hands of the buyer the cost of liquor was what was charged by the appellant under its bill together with the excise duty which the buyer had directly paid on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
