1969 (11) TMI 67

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....does not press before us any contention otherwise than the propriety of the Tribunal in levying a penalty, though observing that it is a token one. The facts necessary to note in this case in so far as the question under dispute is concerned are very simple. The assessee bona fide believed that the purchases of cotton made by them were not last purchases and that, therefore, there was no occasion for them to file a return of such purchases of cotton made by them inside the State of Madras and in fact they did not provide the necessary materials to the taxing authorities in connection with their purchases of cotton. It transpired, however, that the sellers from whom the petitioner purchased cotton were interrogated by the department and i....

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 ends of justice. As against this order, the present tax cases have been filed in revision. We have noticed already that the petitioner is not questioning the levy as such, but he is aggrieved against the imposition of the token penalty by the Appellate Tribunal for each of the years. Mr. Chandrasekhara Sastry, learned counsel for the petitioner, would state that as the assessment proceedings themselves sprung from an honest disclosure of the statement of affairs of the petitioner-company by one of the directors thereof, it should be taken for granted that the petitioner was acting bona fide throughout. His further case is that as substantial relief was secured in the hands of the revenue at the stage of appeal and as the Tribunal a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....guable then section 12(3) will not be attracted. But in the instant case, it cannot be said that there was such an arguable case as pleaded and accepted by this court in T.P.S.R. Factory P. Ltd. v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer(1). The petitioner did not file a return because lie was sure that he had material on record to satisfy the authorities that it was not the last purchase of cotton within the State and it was on this ground that he refrained from filing the return. This is not to say that because the point was arguable and complicated, no such return was filed. Ultimately the assessee failed to establish from the material available with him and on the records disclosed, that the purchases made were not the last purchases in this Stat....