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, after an appellate authority sets aside an order imposing penalty under section 55(6) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, the Sales Tax Officer can levy the same penalty afresh for the same default and period.
Analysis: Section 55(6) separately defines the appellate powers in assessment, penalty, and interest matters. In an appeal against penalty, the appellate authority may confirm, cancel, enhance, or reduce the penalty, but the provision does not confer power to set aside the penalty and remand the matter for fresh adjudication, unlike the express remand power provided in assessment appeals. The omission of remand power in penalty appeals is deliberate. Therefore, once a penalty order is cancelled or set aside on appeal, the original authority cannot reopen the matter and pass a fresh penalty order. Even on the assumption that remand could exist in an appropriate case, no remand direction was issued by the appellate authority here.
Conclusion: The fresh order imposing penalty was without authority of law and could not be sustained.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the impugned penalty order was quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute exhaustively specifies appellate powers in penalty matters and does not authorize remand, cancellation of a penalty order on appeal precludes the assessing authority from imposing the same penalty afresh for the same cause.