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 under section 22A(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 was justified where the original return contained inaccurate sales figures and a revised return was filed later under section 10(4) of the same Act.
Analysis: Section 10(4) permits a revised return only when the dealer discovers an omission or other error in the return already furnished. On the facts found by the sales tax authorities, the original return did not suffer from a bona fide omission or error; rather, the dealer had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars and suppressed sales so that tax liability would be understated. In such a situation, the later revised return could not displace the effect of the original return, and the case fell within the mischief of section 22A(1), which authorises penalty where inaccurate particulars of sales are furnished and the returned figures are below the real amount.
Conclusion: The penalty was rightly attracted, and section 10(4) did not assist the dealer.
Final Conclusion: The legal question was answered against the dealer and in favour of the revenue, with the levy of penalty sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: A revised return under section 10(4) is available only for a genuine discovery of omission or error, and it cannot be used to avoid penalty where inaccurate particulars were deliberately furnished in the original return.