1991 (1) TMI 398

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....its books of account on the basis of calendar year, that is to say, from 1st of January to 31st of December of each year. The controversy in the present case related to the accounting period commencing from 1st January, 1976. The assessee was assessed on the basis of biennial returns, that is to say, for the accounting period between 1st January, 1973 to 31st December, 1974 one assessment was made and for the accounting period between 1st January, 1975 to 31st December, 1976 another assessment was made. These assessments were made on 20th December, 1976 and 17th January, 1978, respectively. The assessee was a manufacturer and as such was entitled to benefit of section 5CC of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act for the purchase of raw materials on t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....C for availing the exemption. In view of this finding, a penalty of Rs. 17,500 was imposed on the assessee. Aggrieved with the levy of penalty, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Bikaner, which was allowed and the order passed by the assessing authority was set aside. The appellate authority directed for issuance of a fresh notice in respect of each year separately, against which a revision was filed by the assessee before the Sales Tax Tribunal. The appeal was accepted by the Tribunal holding that the limitation prescribed for assessment also applied to penalty proceedings and as the assessment under section 10 was barred by time, therefore, penalty could not have been levied or ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assessment order could be justified. For the above view, reference was made to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1963 SC 1356 at page 1386 (S.C. Prashar v. Vasantsen Dwarkadas) and [1980] 46 STC 141 (Raj) (Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan). Neither section 5CC(2) nor section 10B provides for an eventuality to impose penalty in a situation like the present. The Tribunal set aside the penalty on the ground that the assessment on the date of imposition of the penalty had become time-barred and, therefore, the same was also beyond time and could not be enforced. Shri Balia, counsel for the petitioner, urged that even if there was no limitation specifically provided for levy of penalty in a case w....