Monthly return compliance: consolidated filing did not cure default, and penalty for non-filing was sustained.

Failure to file separate monthly returns within the prescribed time attracted penalty, because a consolidated return for February and March did not satisfy the statutory requirement of one return for each month. The Court treated the default as falling within section 12(4)(ii) and held that section 12(5)(ii) penalty was properly imposed. The challenge failed because the assessee's filing did not amount to compliance with the monthly return obligation.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under section 12(5)(ii) was leviable for failure to file monthly returns for February and March 1980, and whether the filing of a consolidated return constituted compliance with the statutory requirement.

Analysis: The assessee had failed to submit monthly returns within time. A consolidated return covering two months did not satisfy the statutory mandate requiring a separate monthly return for each month within the prescribed time. The default, therefore, fell within section 12(4)(ii) and attracted section 12(5)(ii).

Conclusion: The penalty was rightly sustained and the challenge to its levy failed.

---