TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (7) TMI 317
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es Tax Act, 1964. In the present petition the legality and propriety of the penalty has been challenged. The first respondent, who is the Assistant Sales Tax Officer, by his two separate orders dated February 9, 1990, assessed the petitioner to pay sales tax in a very small amount for the period from January 4, 1989 to March 31, 1989. Thereafter a notice for reassessment under section 18 of the Act as also under Central Sales Tax Act was issued sometime in October 1990. In the reassessment proceedings no orders are passed for any levy of tax under the Sales Tax Act nor it is held out that any turnover has escaped assessment or the turnover assessed or reassessed is liable to tax but a penalty as mentioned above has been levied in the reasse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shini" is Rs. 1,37,25,000 and the responsibility is foisted on the petitioner to pay all taxes/duties or any other levies applicable. 5.. According to the petitioner the sale has taken place in territorial waters of India and the Sales Tax Officer had no jurisdiction to levy and demand any sales tax on such transaction. In any case at the most it can be an inter-State transaction and in that case the Central sales tax that may be attracted is 4 per cent. This, according to him, is also clear when upon the vessel being taken to Bombay the octroi authorities made its own assessment and even held that the Central sales tax payable is 4 per cent. The next contention is that there can be reassessment under section 18 of the Goa Sales Tax A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this Court in the earlier writ petition. It is next urged that the petitioner took indulgence from this Court which directed petitioner to furnish bank guarantee in a sum of Rs. 1.5 lakhs and furnish personal security for the balance amount. It was, therefore, urged that no more latitude can be shown to a litigant of this kind. Large number of authorities have been relied upon to suggest that entertaining appeals without the pre-requisite of the deposit of tax or as directed by the Tribunal or the court would run counter to the very provision of section 27 of the Goa Sales Tax Act, 1964. If the petitioner wants his appeal to be heard on merits then it is clearly incumbent upon the petitioner to have complied with the order of furnishing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roceed to consider on merits but does not refer to initiation of proceedings. 8.. In the matter of excise duty to be included for the purpose of turnover for deciding the liability of tax reliance was placed in the decision of McDowell & Company Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer [1977] 39 STC 151 (SC); AIR 1977 SC 1459 and McDowell & Company Limited. v. Commercial Tax Officer, reported in [1985] 59 STC 277 (SC). 9.. As against this Shri Nadkarni says that a Division Bench of this Court in Ebrahim and Company v. State of Bombay reported in [1962] 13 STC 877 has viewed that the person who carries on the business of selling goods is liable to pay sales tax on the aggregate of the amount of sale price received or receivable by him in his cap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gainst any such order without making the payment as aforesaid, if the appellant, or as the case may be, the applicant furnishes such security for such amount as it or he may direct." From the aforementioned provision it is clear that for reasons to be recorded in writing an appeal or revision can be entertained without making the payment of tax or penalty or both if the applicant furnishes security for such amount as the Tribunal may direct. 11.. Appeal remedy is a statutory remedy provided under the Act. We have seen the earliest order made by the Tribunal dated April 15, 1992, the operative part of which reads: "Hence, the appeal is admitted and stay granted but subject to the appellant furnishing a security for the sum of the pe....