Just a moment...
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 for concealment of turnover under section 15-A(1)(c) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act could be sustained when the only material against the dealer was the rejection of its explanation regarding an entry in the diary, and whether reliance on a subsequent survey could support the penalty.
Analysis: Penalty proceedings under the sales tax law are penal in character, and the department must establish concealment on material independent of the assessee's explanation merely being disbelieved. A false explanation in assessment proceedings does not by itself justify the inference that turnover was concealed. The material from the survey made in the subsequent year was irrelevant to the year in question. The appellate authority and the Tribunal did not base the penalty on any independent objective material apart from the assessment material, and therefore the statutory requirement for imposing penalty was not satisfied.
Conclusion: The penalty was not sustainable and was liable to be set aside in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the penalty order was quashed, and no costs were awarded.
Ratio Decidendi: Penalty for concealment of turnover cannot be imposed merely because the assessee's explanation is rejected in assessment proceedings; it must rest on independent material showing conscious concealment.