9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 478X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factured by the said company. Petitioner is a dealer under the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as an Act ). For the year 1999-2000, the assessment was finalised by respondent No. 1, Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax on March 28, 2003 vide order annexure P1 and it is held that the dealer has not paid the monthly tax within time and has also not deposited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner is entitled for penalty under section 69 of the Act and notices were directed to be issued for penalty under section 69 of the Act. The notices were issued to the petitioner vide annexure P3. In reply to notice under section 69, petitioner contended that since he has filed an appeal against the assessment order, the proceedings for recovery of fine under section 69 be stayed. However, pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the said firm is sold to the petitioner, the petitioner is not liable to pay the entry tax. The said produced vehicles were entered into the local area, Jabalpur and were liable for the entry tax and affirmed the order imposing penalty under section 69 of the Act. Counsel for petitioner has relied upon the Full Bench judgment of this court in the case of Mohansingh Sons v. Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egligent. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that revisional authority as well as assessing authority has not considered the liability settled by the Full Bench of this court. Counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the revisional authority was satisfied that non-furnishing of bills containing the rubber stamp was not bona fide and petitioner has wilfully suppressed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
