9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 739X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. The applicant was manufacturer of rice. The paddy was raw material for the manufacturing of rice. Being the manufacturer, the applicant was holding recognition certificate under section 4-B of the Act. During the year under consideration, applicant had purchased paddy from registered dealer to the extent of Rs. 27,96,201.94 and from unregistered dealer to the extent of Rs. 63,51,081.79 in all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eding for the violation of section 4-B(2) of the Act and after considering the reply of the applicant levied the penalty at Rs. 2,25,000. The assessing authority observed that the minimum penalty leviable was at Rs. 1,14,532.96 which was the tax on the amount of Rs. 28,63,298.93. The applicant filed the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) which was dismissed. The applicant filed seco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t any default, the minimum penalty should be levied. 5.. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in my view there is no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that there was no default under section 4-B(2) of the Act. Admittedly, the applicant was holding recognition certificate under section 4-B of the Act and availed the benefit of exemption on the entire purchase ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sposed of by such dealer otherwise than by way of sale in the State or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce or in the course of export out of India, such dealer shall be liable to pay as penalty such amount as the assessing authority may fix, which shall not be less than the amount of tax that would have been payable under the provisions of this Act, on the sale or purchase of such goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
