9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 938X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing fee of Rs. 11,319 at the time of inspection of the business premises on July 3, 1984. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the maximum compounding fee which could have been collected is Rs. 1,000 at the relevant point of time and the respondent exceeded his jurisdiction in collecting an amount which works out to double the amount of notional tax payable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0(1). There is nothing in the notice or the proceedings recorded by the respondent to indicate that there was failure to pay or the evasion of any tax recoverable under the Act. On the other hand, the specific irregularity pointed out against the petitioner is the incorrect maintenance of accounts. There is not a word about the failure to pay or evasion of the tax. It is not even noted in the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evasion of tax liability, ultimately the decision rests on the ratio that the inspecting authority arrived at the suppressed turnover which was otherwise taxable. But, there is no such finding in the instant case. What all the inspecting officer did was to note the value of the stock variations and nothing more. Moreover, that was a case in which the basic accounts were not maintained and there w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osition amount was collected not on the ground that a taxable transaction has taken place and that the tax payable in that behalf was being evaded, or was not paid, but on the ground that the petitioner had issued spurious sale bills in order to hoodwink the department, without actually transporting oil. The learned Judges held that the case falls under clause (b) but not under clause (a) and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
