1997 (6) TMI 340

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the State Act (in short, "the Central Act" only). 2.. The penalties pertain to the assessment year 1986-87. It is not in dispute that the assessee, which is a limited company manufacturing machine tools, had failed to deposit advance tax within the time-limit as provided under section 12B of the State Act. Accordingly, it was subjected to penalties of Rs. 3,58,855 and Rs. 10,14,215 under the State and the Central Acts respectively by two separate orders dated March 29, 1990 passed by the assessing authority. The appeals preferred against the said orders to the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes proved to be futile. Therefore, second appeals were taken to the Tribunal, which were allowed in part by the impugned common order. 3.. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Karnataka [1983] 54 STC 341 of this Court. Surprisingly, despite the said findings of fact and having rightly noticed the law in this regard, the Tribunal still sustained penalties to the extent of Rs. 50,000 under the State Act and Rs. 1,00,000 under the Central Act. We have failed to understand the reasons underlying the same. 5.. In para 5 of the judgment in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. [1970] 25 STC 211, the Supreme Court has held that: ".............An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation is the result of a quasi-criminal proceeding, and penalty will not ordinarily be imposed unless the party obliged either acted deliberately in defiance of law or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dis....