9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 689X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000 was passed raising a demand of commercial tax to the tune of Rs. 1,70,474 against the petitioner. In W.P. No. 260 of 2006 an assessment order dated April 13, 2000 was passed raising a demand of entry tax to the tune of Rs. 16,892 against the petitioner. In W.P. No. 263 of 2006 an assessment order dated April 13, 2000 was passed raising a demand of Central sales tax to the tune of Rs. 97,438. Revision petitions were filed in all the three cases. Madhya Pradesh Bakaya Rashi Saral Samadhan Yojna, 2002 was promulgated by the State of Madhya Pradesh on January 5, 2002. Under the scheme, it was provided that the amount of tax and penalty/interest levied under Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, Madhya Pradesh Vanijyik Kar Adhiniyam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dwa vide order dated December 27, 2002 (annexure P9) levied a penalty of Rs. 8,15,000 under section 69 of the Commercial Tax Act in relation to the period from April 1, 1996 to March 31, 1997. A revision was preferred against the same on the ground that in view of the specific provision of the said scheme no penalty could be imposed on the petitioner. Written submissions as contained in annexures P11 and P12 were also submitted. Learned revisional authority (i.e. respondent No. 2) was of the opinion that his power to levy penalty is not curtailed by the scheme. However, on merits some relief was provided by respondent No. 2 vide annexure P13 dated June 21, 2004. This petition has been preferred for quashment of annexures P9 and P13 on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CHEDULE Sl. No. Category of the case Amount to be paid for Samadhan (1) (2) (3) 1. Case in which the amount of arrears is up to Rs. 50,000. 25 per cent of the amount of arrears. 2. Case in which the amount exceeds Rs. 50,000. 40 per cent of the amount of arrears. (6) Application under the scheme for Samadhan for arrears may be submitted up to January 1, 2002. (7) Pendency of appeal/revision/any other proceedings before State Government, Board of Revenue or other departmental authorities was to be disclosed in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d be levied under the Act against the petitioner. However, it has been clarified that the applicant would not be entitled to any other benefit on account of this certificate under any Act. On perusal of the salient features of annexure P3, it is clear that the scheme was introduced as an incentive to invite the assessees to acknowledge the liability and make payment without further inviting any action and/or penalty against them. Thus, no penal action including that of levying penalty could be taken with respect to the assessment order for the period from April 1, 1996 to March 31, 1997 against the petitioner. In clause 7 of the Scheme contained in annexure P3, it has been clearly mentioned that no penal action against the applicant unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of any goods or has furnished false particulars of his sales or purchases, as the case may be. It may be seen from the impugned order, annexure P9, that the learned Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Khandwa, has not based his order on any other concealed turnover, but the same is based on a sum of Rs. 1,70,474 which has been mentioned in the Samadhan Certificate, annexure P7. So far as this amount is concerned, it has been clearly mentioned in annexure P7 that no penalty would be imposed and no action under the Act on account of any offence or error would be initiated against the petitioner. This being so, the respondents had no jurisdiction to levy penalty on the basis of the liability of Rs. 1,70,474. This order is found to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
