Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Court overturns Tribunal's penalty decision under Central Sales Tax Act for lack of reasonable excuse</h1> <h3>Morvi Cotton Merchants´ Industrial Corporation Ltd. Versus The State of Gujarat</h3> Morvi Cotton Merchants´ Industrial Corporation Ltd. Versus The State of Gujarat - [1975] 36 STC 347 (Guj) Issues Involved:1. Whether the failure to record a finding about the absence of reasonable excuse before imposing a penalty under section 10A read with section 10(d) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, is material.2. Whether the applicant-firm failed to make use of kantan purchased against certificates in form C without reasonable excuse, thereby attracting a penalty under section 10A read with section 10(d) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.3. The maximum penalty that can be imposed under section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Materiality of Failure to Record Finding About Absence of Reasonable ExcuseThe Tribunal's decision was scrutinized regarding whether the absence of a recorded finding about the lack of reasonable excuse before imposing a penalty under section 10A read with section 10(d) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, is material. The Court concluded that the expression 'without reasonable excuse' is a necessary ingredient of the offence under section 10(d). The penal provision in section 10(d) requires three ingredients: (i) purchase of goods for the specified purpose, (ii) failure to use the goods for such purpose, and (iii) such failure being without reasonable excuse. Therefore, the department must plead and prove this ingredient, and it must be mentioned in the show cause notice. The Tribunal erred in thinking that this was not an ingredient of the offence and that it would not be material if no finding was given by the sales tax authorities. Thus, the first question was answered in the negative.Issue 2: Justification of Penalty ImpositionThe Tribunal's decision to uphold the penalty was based on conjectures and assumptions without proper evidence. The Sales Tax Officer had not given any finding on the absence of reasonable excuse, and both the appellate authority and the Tribunal considered it as a matter of defence. The Court emphasized that the department must allege and prove the absence of reasonable excuse. The reliance on circumstantial evidence, such as a prior High Court decision, was deemed misplaced. The Tribunal's conjecture about the non-availability of kantan and patti in the local market was also unsupported by material evidence. Therefore, the second question was also answered in the negative.Issue 3: Maximum Penalty ImpositionThe third issue regarding the maximum penalty under section 10A did not arise due to the answers to the first two questions. The Tribunal had already reduced the penalty to a rate of 4 percent, making the question of whether the maximum limit was 4.5 percent or 15 percent irrelevant. Consequently, the third question was deemed not to survive and did not require a decision.Conclusion:The Court answered the first two questions in the negative, indicating that the Tribunal was not justified in its findings and the penalty imposition was not upheld. The third question was deemed irrelevant and did not arise for decision. The State was ordered to pay the costs of the petitioner-company for this reference.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found