1981 (12) TMI 155

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for the calendar year 1973 and Rs. 450 for the calendar year 1974 under section 36(3) of the Act. The petitioner filed appeals to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Appeals, Bombay, against the aforesaid levies, contending inter alia that the two levies could not be justified and section 36(3) of the Act was ultra vires the State Legislature of the State of Maharashtra. While passing orders on appeal, the said Assistant Commissioner enhanced the levy for the year 1973 to Rs. 5,388.07 and confirmed the levy for the year 1974. It is stated on behalf of the respondents and it is equally obvious that since the penalties were not paid, certificates to that effect have been obtained from the Collector of Bombay and they have been forwarded....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xpressed in the above decisions. Hence, the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is repelled. Secondly, the learned counsel would submit that the very order of levy of penalty by the second respondent under section 36(3) of the Act cannot be sustained because the said provision is confiscatory in nature and violative of article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner agitated the matter further by way of appeals to the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Appeals, Bombay, against the order of the second respondent. The appellate orders have gone against him. It is true that a Division Bench of this Court in Veeri Chettiar v. Sales Tax Officer [1970] 26 STC 579 has held that this Court has the power to ex....