9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (10) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which cannot be taken to be an act in discharge of his official duty and thus the State Government cannot be vicariously made liable. The Chief Secretary of the State of Rajasthan is expected to make it clear to the officers of the State Government by issuing an appropriate circular, order or direction as the case may be. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed by respondent No. 2. On September 9, 2002, it is noticed that by this appeal the appellant has challenged two different orders of the Tribunal, i.e., annexure 3 (dated January 18, 1999) and annexure 4 (dated December 22, 1999). Under the order dated January 18, 1999 (annexure 3), the Tribunal has decided the appeal. Vide its order dated December 22, 1999 (annexure 4), the Tribunal decided the review petition. The court held that the two orders cannot be challenged in one appeal. The appellant was directed to file separate appeal if he desires to challenge the order dated January 18, 1999 (annexure 3). The court has further directed the appellant to make necessary corrections in the appeal challenging the order dated December 22, 1999 (annexure 4). The appellant filed miscellaneous application for amendment/correction in appeal in compliance of the order dated October 21, 2002, aforestated. In this application, the prayer is made that the appeal may be treated against the order dated December 22, 1999 (anneuxre 4) only. Heard learned counsel for the parties on this application. The application is not opposed by learned counsel for the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant, Shri R.B. Mathur urged that the appellant, if so desires, could have approached to the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Rajasthan, Jaipur, for waiver of this penalty but that has not been done. The appellant has not given out any satisfactory, cogent and justified explanation for non-filing of TDS returns in time. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties. In the case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Collector, Central Excise [1991] 4 JT 158, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that a petition by one Department against another or public sector undertaking or State does not lie to this court unless certificate for filing the same has been given by the high level committee constituted by the Government. The apex court has observed that, inter se dispute of the State Government on the one side and the Central Government on the other side directly should not come to the court for its resolution. For resolution of their inter se disputes a High Power Committee is to be constituted. The courts are already heavily burdened with the work. The pendin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Chief Commissioner of Income-tax or the Commissioner of Income-tax without prejudice to the powers conferred on him by any other provision of the Act, 1961, may, on an application made in this behalf by an assessee, and after recording his reasons for doing so, reduce or waive the amount of any penalty payable by the assessee under the Act, 1961, or stay or compound any proceeding for the recovery of any such amount if he is satisfied that to do otherwise would cause genuine hardship to the assessee, having regard to the circumstances of the case, and the assessee has co-operated in any enquiry relating to the assessment or any proceeding for the recovery of any amount due, from him. As per the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 273A of the Act, 1961, for this reduction or waiver of the amount of penalty it is open to the appellant to approach the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax or the Commissioner of Income-tax by an application. Thus, in the facts of this case and keeping in view the ratio of the decision of the apex court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Collector, Central Excise [1991] 4 JT 158, we are satisfied that the interest of justice will serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
