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>Division Bench remands case for reassessment after assessee's special appeal. Penalties deemed unjustified. Specific turnovers not taxable.</h1> <h3>Commercial Tax Officer, ´A´ Circle, Jaipur Versus Radha Ballabh & Sons</h3> Commercial Tax Officer, ´A´ Circle, Jaipur Versus Radha Ballabh & Sons - [1982] 51 STC 60 (Raj) Issues:1. Application under section 15(3A) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1955 for directing the Board of Revenue to state a case and refer questions of law.2. Imposition of penalties under sections 16(1)(c), 16(1)(b), and 16(1)(e) by the assessing authority.3. Appeal and revision filed by the assessee against the assessment order.4. Questions of law raised regarding the jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue and the taxability of certain turnovers.Analysis:The judgment pertains to an application under section 15(3A) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1955, requesting the Board of Revenue to state a case and refer questions of law arising from an assessment order. The assessing authority had imposed penalties under sections 16(1)(c), 16(1)(b), and 16(1)(e) on the assessee. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, which partially allowed relief. Subsequently, a revision application was filed before the Board of Revenue, leading to a special appeal by the assessee. The Division Bench of the Board remanded the case for reassessment. The assessing authority then sought to refer questions of law to the High Court for decision.Regarding the first question raised, the Court held that the Division Bench of the Board was justified in dealing with the validity of the penalty even if it was not raised by the lower authority. The Court emphasized the discretionary power of the Board in such matters and concluded that no question of law arose from this issue.Moving on to questions (3) and (4), the Court analyzed the taxability of turnovers related to the sale of iron and steel and the contract for supplying and installing electrical goods. The Court examined the definitions and provisions of the Act and Rules to determine the tax liability. It was observed that the turnover of the assessee could not include certain sales based on specific provisions and explanations within the Act. Therefore, the Court concluded that these questions did not raise any legal issues for reference.Regarding question (2) concerning the imposition of penalties under sections 16(1)(c) and (e), the Court found that since there was no concealment or deliberate suppression by the assessee, the penalties were not justified. Consequently, the Court held that this question did not arise from the Board's order.In conclusion, the Court dismissed the application, stating that no questions of law necessitated a reference to the High Court for decision. The judgment highlighted the specific legal interpretations and factual findings that led to the dismissal of the application without any costs being imposed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
