Just a moment...

βœ•
Top
Help
πŸš€ New: Section-Wise Filter βœ•

1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β€” now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available

2. New: β€œIn Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.

Try both these filters in Case Laws β†’

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedbackβœ•

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search βœ•
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
β•³
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
βœ•
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close βœ•
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

        Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.

        <h1>Excessive Sales Tax Penalty Period Reduced to Three Years</h1> The High Court found the 17-year penalty period imposed by the Sales Tax Officer under Section 10-A of the CST Act excessive and arbitrary. Relying on ... Imposition of penalty in lieu of prosecution under Section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act - exercise of statutory power within a reasonable time - limitation on retrospective aggregation of penalty periods - reopening of assessment period and fraud exception - pro rata restriction of penalty to three years prior to the penalty orderImposition of penalty in lieu of prosecution under Section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act - exercise of statutory power within a reasonable time - limitation on retrospective aggregation of penalty periods - Whether the power under Section 10-A to impose penalty can be exercised to levy penalty in one lump sum for a continuous period of seventeen years, or whether it must be exercised within a reasonable time - HELD THAT: - Although Section 10-A does not prescribe a period of limitation, the Court applied settled principles that absence of express limitation does not permit arbitrary or unreasonable exercise of statutory power; such power must be exercised within a reasonable period. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decisions in Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals and Bhatinda District Coop. Milk P. Union Ltd., which hold that where no limitation is prescribed the authority must act within a reasonable period and what is reasonable depends on facts and nature of statute. Applying that principle, the Court held that permitting the Department to impose penalty in one go for a continuous period of seventeen years would be unreasonable and arbitrary and therefore unsustainable in law. The Court therefore restricted the temporal ambit of the penalty to a reasonable retrospective period. [Paras 8, 9, 10, 11]The impugned order imposing penalty for the entire period 22nd October, 1975 to 30th June, 1992 is unsustainable as it amounts to an unreasonable exercise of power under Section 10-A.Reopening of assessment period and fraud exception - pro rata restriction of penalty to three years prior to the penalty order - If the power to impose penalty is to be temporally restricted, what retrospective period is reasonable in the facts of this case - HELD THAT: - The Court considered the statutory scheme allowing reopening of assessments (maximum seven years in case of proven fraud) and noted absence of any material to establish fraud by the petitioner. In light of that scheme and the lack of evidence of fraud, the Court concluded that a reasonable and proportionate limitation in the present matter is to restrict the period for imposition of penalty to three years prior to the date of the penalty order. The Court directed the Department to rework the penalty on a pro rata basis for the period so restricted, modifying both the STO and Revisional authority orders accordingly. [Paras 12, 13]Penalty to be recalculated on a pro rata basis limited to the period from 1st July 1989 to 30th June 1992; impugned orders modified accordingly.Final Conclusion: The writ petition is allowed insofar as the impugned orders imposing penalty for the entire period 22nd October, 1975 to 30th June, 1992 are modified: the Department is directed to rework the penalty on a pro rata basis restricted to the period 1st July 1989 to 30th June 1992, and the STO and Revisional orders stand modified accordingly. Issues:Challenge to Sales Tax Officer's penalty order under Section 10-A of CST Act for a 17-year period and subsequent reduction by the Revisional authority.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the Sales Tax Officer's penalty order of Rs. 39,28,526 imposed under Section 10-A of the CST Act for the period 22nd October, 1975 to 30th June, 1992, spanning 17 years. Additionally, the challenge extended to a subsequent order by the Revisional authority dated 20th February, 1995, reducing the penalty amount to Rs. 14,38,093. The primary contention was that the period of 17 years for imposing the penalty was excessive and against the law.The petitioner argued that while there is no specific limitation period under Section 10-A of the CST Act for penalty imposition, it should be interpreted reasonably. Citing Supreme Court decisions, the petitioner emphasized that penalties should not be levied for periods longer than the maximum reopening period of assessments under the CST Act, which is typically five years. In contrast, the Department justified the penalty order, highlighting statutory violations and recent amendments allowing assessments up to seven years post the original assessment period in cases of proven fraud.The High Court noted that while Section 10-A does not specify a limitation period for penalty imposition, exercising such power should be within a reasonable timeframe. The Court found a 17-year penalty period unreasonable and arbitrary, aligning with the legislative intent. Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the Court emphasized the need for reasonable exercise of power without arbitrary delays, even in the absence of explicit limitation periods in statutes.Based on the legal principles outlined in previous judgments, the Court directed the Opposite Parties to recalculate the penalty amount proportionately, limiting the period to three years before the penalty order date. Consequently, the penalty period was restricted from 1st July 1989 to 30th June 1992, modifying the orders of both the Sales Tax Officer and the Revisional authority accordingly. Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of in line with the revised penalty calculation.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found