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 the consolidated penalty orders levying sales tax penalty on the unit were sustainable, and whether the matter required remand for fresh decision.
Analysis: The benefit of deferment or exemption under the New Industrial Policy, 1989 was connected with the statutory amendment introducing section 30-A of the Punjab General Sales Tax Act. There was admitted confusion as to the date from which the benefit became operative, and this confusion had a bearing on the non-deposit of tax. The impugned orders imposed penalty both for the original capacity and the increased capacity after modernisation, but they were consolidated and did not disclose any break-up showing the penalty relatable to the period before and after the amendment date. In such circumstances, the orders could not be sustained without a proper segregation of liability and a fresh consideration of the factual and legal position.
Conclusion: The penalty orders were unsustainable and were quashed, and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Authority for a fresh decision.
Ratio Decidendi: A consolidated penalty order that fails to apportion liability between distinct periods, where the governing benefit and its operative date are themselves in dispute, is unsustainable and must be reconsidered afresh by the authority.