Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether penalty under section 10(d) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 was leviable when the assessee used goods in execution of works contracts after obtaining C forms that had been issued in the earlier form, and whether the existence of a reasonable excuse negatived the penalty.
Analysis: Liability under section 10(d) is not automatic. It arises only where, after purchasing goods for a purpose specified in section 8(3)(b), the purchaser uses them for another purpose without reasonable excuse. The amended section 8(3)(b), effective from 1 October 1958, did not permit use in execution of contracts, but the assessee had been supplied forms in the earlier regime and may have acted under a bona fide misapprehension. In penalty proceedings, that circumstance is material because the statutory condition of absence of reasonable excuse must be satisfied before penalty can be imposed.
Conclusion: The penalty was not sustainable, and the petition was allowed in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: Penalty under section 10(d) could not be imposed in the absence of proof that the misuse of the goods was without reasonable excuse.
Ratio Decidendi: Penalty under section 10(d) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 is imposable only when the goods purchased for a permitted purpose are diverted to another use without reasonable excuse.