TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court sets aside revisional and penalty orders, allows petition for fresh penalty proceedings</h1> <h3>Lakhani Foot Care Ltd. Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others</h3> The High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the revisional order and penalty order, with the possibility of fresh penalty proceedings by the State ... Imposition of Penalty while pendency of Appeal – When second appeal filed by petitioner against assessment order was pending, despite that, assessing authority levied penalty – Vide impugned order Second Appeal was allowed by Board and original assessment order was set aside, with direction to assessing officer to pass fresh order, in accordance with law – Held that:- penalty was levied during pendency of second appeal against assessment order - As said second appeal has been allowed and matter has been remitted to assessing officer to pass fresh order impugned order imposing penalty needs to be quashed – Decided in favour of Petitioner. Issues:1. Application for placing subsequent events on record.2. Validity of penalty order during pendency of second appeal.3. Quashing of revisional order and penalty order.Analysis:1. The petitioner filed an application to place subsequent events on record, including an order passed by the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Appellate Board. The application was allowed after due consideration.2. The petitioner contended that the penalty order was invalid as it was levied during the pendency of the second appeal, which had now been decided in favor of the petitioner. Citing a previous judgment, the petitioner argued that penalty could only be imposed after the assessment order had attained finality. The High Court agreed with the petitioner's argument and quashed the impugned revisional order and the original penalty order.3. The Deputy Government Advocate requested that if the orders were quashed, the State should be granted liberty to initiate fresh penalty proceedings if necessary. The High Court, considering the submissions and the legal precedent, allowed the petition, quashing the impugned orders but granting liberty to the State to initiate fresh penalty proceedings if required.Overall, the High Court allowed the petition, setting aside the revisional order and penalty order, with the possibility of fresh penalty proceedings by the State if needed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
