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 the Commissioner could revise the appellate authority's order reducing penalty under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner had exercised discretion wrongly.
Analysis: The penalty under section 12-B was not mandatory in a rigid sense but had to be imposed within the statutory maximum by exercising sound discretion on the facts of each case. The appellate authority had considered the material circumstances, including the fact that the tax liability arose because of an amendment, the assessee had not collected tax, and the assessee was under financial stress. Those were relevant considerations in deciding whether the penalty should be reduced. The appellate power under section 20 was co-extensive with that of the assessing authority in relation to penalty under section 12-B. The Commissioner, while exercising revisional power under section 22-A, could not interfere merely because he would have taken a different view, especially when the appellate authority had acted within jurisdiction and on relevant materials.
Conclusion: The revisional interference was unwarranted and the reduction of penalty by the appellate authority was valid; the order restoring the original penalty could not stand.