1990 (6) TMI 201

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ention of section 10(b) of the Act, which was, on appeal, confirmed by the first appellate authority. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the respondent-assessee, a contention was raised stating that the penalty levied by the Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Rajapalayam, cannot be sustained inasmuch as the registration certificate was issued by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Rajapalayam. In other words, it was contended on behalf of the respondentassessee that the authority who issued the registration certificate alone was competent to levy penalty for violation of section 10(b) of the Act. That contention was accepted by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal on the basis that the ruling of the Supreme Court reported in State of U.P. v. Dyer M....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....um not exceeding one and a half times the tax which would have been levied under sub-section (2) of section 8 in respect of the sale to him of the goods, if the sale had been a sale falling within that sub-section: Provided that no prosecution for an offence under section 10 shall be instituted in respect of the same facts on which a penalty has been imposed under this section. (2) The penalty imposed upon any dealer under sub-section (1) shall be collected by the Government of India in the manner provided in subsection (2) of section 9  (a) in the case of an offence falling under clause (b) or clause (d) of section 10, in the State in which the person purchasing the goods obtained the form prescribed for the purposes of claus....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d ultimately the High Court set aside that penalty on the ground that the Sales Tax Officer, Ghaziabad, had no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings and levy penalty under section 10A of the Act on the ground that when the proceedings were initiated, it was the Sales Tax Officer, Lucknow, who was competent to initiate and levy penalty. On further appeal to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court observed as follows: "There is no dispute that the authority who granted the certificate of registration was the Sales Tax Officer, Ghaziabad. Therefore, prima facie, he was competent to levy penalty on the assessee. But it was contended on behalf of the assessee that on March 28, 1960, the registration before the Sales Tax Officer, Ghaziabad. stood ....