TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, after the appellate authority set aside a penalty order for want of notice and directed refund of the penalty amount without expressly authorising further proceedings, the assessing authority could initiate fresh penalty proceedings.
Analysis: The penalty had been annulled on a procedural defect, namely non-observance of the notice requirement, and not on merits. The decisive factor, however, was the appellate authority's explicit direction that the penalty amount be refunded. Read with the statutory scheme governing appeals under section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, the order was treated as a complete setting aside of the penalty, not as a mere technical remand or a reservation permitting fresh action. Since the appellate authority did not direct a fresh order after further inquiry, the assessing authority could not treat the matter as open for re-initiation.
Conclusion: Fresh penalty proceedings were not competent, and the revision by the Revenue failed.
Final Conclusion: The appellate order was construed as having finally annulled the penalty and required refund of the recovered amount, leaving no scope for renewed penalty proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an appellate authority sets aside a penalty order on procedural grounds and, instead of directing a fresh decision, orders refund of the penalty amount, the order must be treated as finally annulling the penalty and not as permitting fresh proceedings.
TaxTMI 
