TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (1) TMI 285
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom 11th May, 1970, was granted to the applicants in respect of their Pune office. An application was made by the applicants to the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax for condoning the delay in applying for registration. This application was granted and the registration certificate in respect of Pune office was made effective from 1st April, 1966, that is to say, the date of opening of the Pune branch. 2.. In the meanwhile the applicants were furnishing returns at Bombay by including the turnover of sales at their Pune branch in the Bombay returns. This position was regularised for the period from 1st April, 1966, to 31st December, 1970, by giving formal permission to the applicants for filing a consolidated return at Bombay. 3.. In the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. 7.. The applicants preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax. The Assistant Commissioner requantified the penalty and reduced it to Rs. 32,734. 8.. The applicants preferred a second appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal held that having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances the assessee deserved certain remission. The Tribunal observed that the extra demand and the entire delay had arisen due to technicalities. It held that there was no mala fide intention on the part of the assessee to evade or to delay the payment of any tax. The Tribunal however, granted a remission only of penalty in excess of Rs. 20,000. Hence the present reference before us unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the said Act a registered dealer furnishing returns as required by sub-section (1) of section 32, shall first pay into a Government treasury, in the manner prescribed, the whole of the amount of tax due from him according to such return along with the amount of any penalty payable by him under section, 36. The applicants were, therefore, required to pay the tax as per their returns before filing the quarterly returns. 12.. The applicants had filed a consolidated return at Bombay for the quarter 1st January, 1971, to 31st March, 1971. Tax as per this return was also paid prior to filing the return. The Sales Tax Officer at Bombay, however, excluded the sales at Pune for the said period while completing the assessment. There was, there....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orted in [1981] 48 STC 552 (to which I was a party), the assessee had paid in full the amount of tax shown as payable according to the return prior to the filing of the return. The assessee had also applied for determination of the tax under section 52 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act. On such determination and during the pendency of the assessee's appeal to the Tribunal against the determination, the assessee paid the increased tax as per the determination under section 52. The Court held that the provisions of section 36(3) were not attracted because the tax which was shown according to the return was paid in full. The amount which was subsequently paid could not be considered as under or towards the amount of tax due according to that return ....