9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 1272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondents is taken on record. 2.. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of tin containers. It filed its returns regarding sales for the assessment year 199495. The Assessing Authority found that the petitioner was liable to pay a net amount of Rs. 39,697 after adjusting the amount already paid under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It als ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed the order dated March 29, 2001. A copy of the order is at annexure P-3. By this order, the petitioner has been held liable to pay an amount of Rs. 7,87,991. A perusal of the order shows that a total penalty of Rs. 6 lacs was imposed. An amount of Rs. 1,54,000 approximately was also levied by way of interest. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner has approached this Court through the prese ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst the impugned order. However, it has been admitted that the penalty is in excess of the maximum prescribed under the Act. 5.. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard. 6.. It is undoubtedly true that by notice dated March 12, 2001 the petitioner had been directed to appear on March 22, 2001. A representative of the petitioner had appeared before the revisional authority and made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner to the remedy of appeal would place it under an avoidable burden of depositing the tax which may be in excess of its liability. In the circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that the authority had not acted in conformity with the principles of natural justice. It had failed to grant due and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. Thus, the action is apparently violative of the prin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
