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 77(8) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 was rightly deleted when the goods were found unaccounted, unsupported by bill or voucher, and the dealer had admitted the irregularity.
Analysis: The goods in question were found during survey in the respondent's custody without any entry in the books of account and without any supporting purchase bill or voucher. The respondent had also written that the goods were purchased without bill, no entry had been made in the accounts, and penalty could be imposed with release of the goods on payment. The later plea of pressure or coercion was raised only after a long lapse of time and was treated as an afterthought. In these circumstances, the tax authorities below had sufficient material to sustain the penalty, and the Tax Board erred in deleting it on the basis of subsequent documents and a belated explanation.
Conclusion: The deletion of penalty was unsustainable, and the penalty imposed under section 77(8) was rightly restored in favour of the Revenue.
Ratio Decidendi: Where possession of goods remains unaccounted for and the dealer's contemporaneous admission shows absence of supporting documents, a later explanation or subsequently produced material cannot displace a valid penalty under the statutory provision.