1977 (9) TMI 50

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the Dewali year 1969-70, vide order dt. 21st Aug., 1971. The gross turnover was determined as Rs. 14,433, the tax being nil. Thereafter the case was reopened under s. 19(1) of the Act on the basis of an application voluntarily submitted by the dealer, that he had done some business in ballast, the turnover of which was Rs. 19,350 and had not reporte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t. The assessment and penalty were mentioned in first appeal. Appellant has now preferred a second appeal before the Tribunal under s. 38(2) of the Act. 2. The only point raised in this appeal is that penalty under s. 19(1) of the Act was unjustified and also excessive. Learned counsel for appellant argued that appellant had himself come forward and made this application for assessment of this ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ere is evidence of an act on the part of the dealer for the evasion. Dishonest intention would, therefore, be an essential ingredient of this section also. Since in this case the dealer came forward of his own accord to have his case re-assessed and also paid tax even before the re-assessment, there is good reason to hold that there was no dishonest intention. Learned counsel for the CST argued th....