9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 1049X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... OURT] . Further, the transaction relates to the assessment year 1983-1984 whereas the penalty proceedings came to be initiated on 09.08.1992 i.e. after a long lapse of nine years. Therefore, the Tribunal had considered various aspects on record and gave a finding which is not challenged before this Court. The Tribunal, being the last finding authority and in the absence of such conclusive finding being challenged raising a specific question of perversity, we do not find any questions of law much less substantial questions for adjudication in the present case. - Decided against the revene - T.R.C. No. 62 of 2002 - - - Dated:- 23-6-2015 - G. Chandraiah and Challa Kodanda Ram, JJ. For the Petitioner: G.P. for Commercial Tax For R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ows: (a) . (aa).. (b) being a registered dealer, falsely represents when any class of goods that goods of such class are covered by his certificate of registration; or (c) not being a registered dealer, falsely represents when purchasing goods in the course of inter-state trade or commerce that he is a registered dealer; or (d) of sub-section (3) of Section 8 falls, without reasonable excuse, to make use of the goods for any such purpose; (e) (f) .. The applicability or otherwise of Section 10-(A) of the Act is required to be considered in the facts of this case. The Tribunal, as a matter of fact, found and waived the penalty as under: It is to be seen in the case on hand that the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... him u/s.6(2) of the CST Act the notices of law and its interpretation making the departmental officials to treat that there was no sale of goods by the appellant because they were used in a works contract on the ground that the works contract is an indivisible contract, we cannot say that the appellant has malafide intentions as is held in the decision relied on by the appellant reported in (1988) 70 STC 286. Therefore, for all these reasons we hold that the imposing of penalty on the alleged misuse of C forms is not sustainable. Hence, the point is held accordingly. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting-aside the orders of both the lower authorities, imposing the penalty on the appellant. The order of the Tribunal as extra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
