9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1544X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion cases are allowed in part - O.T. Rev. Nos. 29, O.T. Rev. Nos. 30 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 23-3-2011 - RAMACHANDRAN NAIR C.N. AND GOPINATHAN P.S. JJ. PMM. Najeeb Khan for the petitioner Mohammed Reafeeq, Government Pleader, for the respondent JUDGMENT The question raised in both the connected revision cases is whether the Tribunal was justified in sustaining penalty at equal amount of tax for dishonour of cheques given towards payment of tax and consequent delay in payment of tax. At admission stage of the revision cases, learned Government Pleader took notice and offered to argue the matter on merits. Accordingly we heard both sides and proceed to dispose of the revisions by this common judgment. The petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hand, contended that there is no bona fides in the petitioner's contention and the same is clear from the fact that the petitioner did not even apply for time for payment of tax even after dishonour of cheques which would have been intimated by the bank to the petitioner at least, though the Department did not admittedly inform him in time. We do not think there is any need to go into the question whether the petitioner had an ailment leading to his inability to arrange funds in the bank to honour the cheques given because a dealer collecting tax has to pay the collected tax to the Government and he has no authority to divert collected tax for any other purpose. However, if for any unforeseen reason the cheques got dishonoured, it was t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of tax, the Tribunal in fact did not accept the principle that maximum penalty under section 67 of the Act could be levied because by reducing the penalty to equal amount of tax, the Tribunal has made the penalty orders compliant with section 68 of the Act. We have, in O.T. Rev. No. 27 of 2011 (K.V. Paul v. State of Kerala [2011] 46 VST 86 (Ker)), held that the scope of section 67 of the Act is such that it covers all cases of violation of the Act and the Rules. However, wherever there is special provision in the Act providing for penalty for specific violation, penalty should be considered under the special provision and not under section 67 which provides for penalty for all violations not separately provided for. A case of non-paym ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
