1987 (4) TMI 472

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d. The petitioner, though not entitled to collect surcharge on sale of cement to its stockists, for the relevant years 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79, under a bona fide mistake, did collect such surcharge. The sale of cement took place at Madukkarai, which was not notified as a suburban area for the purpose of applicability of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax (Surcharge) Act, 1971, and collection of surchar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of law and the demand of surcharge was illegal and equity and public interest compelled the refund of illegal exactions. The pronouncement of this Court was rendered only on 9th January, 1984. For the present year, the Revenue has chosen to impose penalty on the petitioner under section 22(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act (1 of 1959), hereinafter referred to as the Act, on the ground th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f these circumstances to hold that there is no warrant for imposition of penalty under section 22(2) of the Act. If I take note of the facts that have transpired in the present cases, I have to uphold the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Revenue itself levied surcharge on the petitioner in respect of sale of cement at Madukkarai, even though it was not permissible in law.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....both the Revenue and the petitioner. These circumstances compel me to countenance the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the imposition of penalty in the instant cases. A Bench of this Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Sasman and Company [1984] 57 STC 160, has also, on the ground of mutual mistake, held that the levy of penalty was not warranted. The ratio....