1976 (2) TMI 69 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal Overturns Penalty Decision for Lack of Evidence, Emphasizes Fair Hearing

The appeal challenging the penalty imposed under section 29-A of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 was summarily rejected by the Appellate Asst. CST, ... - Issues:1. Summary rejection of the appeal under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958.2. Justification of penalty imposed under section 29-A of the Act and the quantum of penalty.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: The appeal in question was summarily rejected by the Appellate Asst. CST, Raipur under rule 58(1) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Rules, 1959, against the penalty imposed under section 29-A(4) of the Act. The contention raised was that the appeal should not have been rejected summarily due to alleged delays in communication of the initial order. The appellants argued that the memorandum of appeal was dispatched within the prescribed period, challenging the rejection on the ground of limitation. However, as no attempt was made to seek condonation of delay, the appellate authority considered the appeal barred by limitation. The decision was based on the orders maintained by the S.T.O, indicating communication of the order on 5th March, despite discrepancies in the dates claimed by the appellants. The rejection was upheld, citing the lack of evidence to support the delay condonation.Issue 2: The appellants further contended that even if the summary rejection was justified, the Tribunal as the second appellant authority could review the merits of the appeal. Referring to legal precedents, they argued that the Tribunal could delve into the facts of the case despite the dismissal in default. Regarding the penalty imposed under section 29-A of the Act, it was argued that the quantum was excessive and arbitrarily determined. The section mandates penalty for knowingly filing incorrect or incomplete declarations. The appellants provided explanations for discrepancies in declarations, such as goods damaged in transit. However, the assessing authority did not adequately consider these explanations in determining the penalty. It was highlighted that the quantum of penalty should be based on judicial considerations and facts of each case. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders imposing penalties, remanding the case for a fresh inquiry to ascertain all relevant facts and provide the appellants with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.