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 penalty sustained under section 16(1)(e) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, was vitiated for failure to consider whether there was conscious concealment or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars, and whether the matter should be remitted for fresh determination of penalty and its quantum.
Analysis: The provision under consideration is penal in character and, in substance, requires examination of the whole of the circumstances before penalty can be upheld. Mere non-disclosure of a large turnover or the sustaining of an addition in assessment is not by itself conclusive for penalty. The relevant inquiry is whether the dealer consciously concealed particulars or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars, and the filing of a revised return before completion of assessment was a material circumstance that had to be weighed in that context. The Board's approach was found to have given undue emphasis to the magnitude of the concealed turnover without applying the correct legal test to the penalty proceeding.
Conclusion: The order sustaining penalty was not legally sustainable, and the matter was required to be sent back for redetermination of the levy of penalty and, if necessary, its quantum in accordance with law.