TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court invalidates penalty under conflicting tax laws, emphasizes legislative principle</h1> <h3>DH. Shah & Co. Versus The State of Madras</h3> DH. Shah & Co. Versus The State of Madras - [1967] 20 STC 146 (Mad) Issues:Validity of penalty under section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with section 12(3) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959.Analysis:The judgment pertains to the revision of an order by the Tribunal upholding the validity of a penalty levied under section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, in conjunction with section 12(3) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, for the assessment year 1959-60. The assessee was provisionally assessed based on a filed return, but upon inspection, additional turnover was discovered, leading to a revised assessment and the imposition of a penalty. The Tribunal upheld part of the penalty after appeals. The key contention raised was that the penalty was illegal as section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act does not align with section 12(3) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act. The court analyzed the interplay between the two sections, emphasizing that the penalty provisions under the Central Sales Tax Act do not cover penalties akin to those under the Madras General Sales Tax Act. Consequently, the court deemed the penalty invalid based on this argument.Moreover, the court addressed the absence of a penalty provision in the previous Madras General Sales Tax Act of 1939, which was only introduced in the 1959 Act. The court opined that the Central Act could not adopt a penalty provision that did not exist at the time of its enactment. Citing precedents, the court highlighted the legislative principle of adopting existing provisions without incorporating future amendments. Therefore, the court concluded that the penalty, being a new provision in the 1959 Act, could not be retroactively applied to the Central Sales Tax Act under section 9(3). Consequently, the court set aside the penalty, allowing the petition with costs.In summary, the court's decision centered on the incompatibility of penalty provisions between the Central Sales Tax Act and the Madras General Sales Tax Act, as well as the legislative principle of adopting existing, not future, provisions. This comprehensive analysis led to the court invalidating the penalty imposed on the assessee for the assessment year 1959-60.
TaxTMI 