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: (i) Whether the penalty and interest imposed in connection with the admitted evasion were sustainable; (ii) whether a separate penalty could be imposed on the partner when penalty had already been imposed on the firm.
Issue (i): Whether the penalty and interest imposed in connection with the admitted evasion were sustainable.
Analysis: The liability was founded on the partner's admission and the surrounding record. On the facts, the adjudication was supported by the materials relied upon and the finding of involvement in the evasion was not displaced.
Conclusion: The penalty and the interest were upheld.
Issue (ii): Whether a separate penalty could be imposed on the partner when penalty had already been imposed on the firm.
Analysis: A separate penalty on the partner was considered not sustainable in the light of the principle that the partner was not to be penalised separately in the circumstances of the case. The penalty on the partner was therefore found to be untenable.
Conclusion: The separate penalty on the partner was set aside.
Final Conclusion: The adjudication was sustained in substance, but the individual penalty on the partner was deleted, resulting in only partial relief to the appellant side.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the evasion is established on the basis of an admitted role in the transaction, the penalty and interest may be sustained, but a separate penalty on the partner is not maintainable where the legal basis for individual penal action is absent.