TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (9) TMI 563
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....artner, Hari Narain and the sole surviving partner of the dissolved partnership firm M/s. Chottey Lal Mahadeo-the assessee-dealer and original respondent No. 1 to whom the proceedings originally related. 4.. Respondents Nos. 2-11 are the other legal representatives of the deceased Hari Narain. Hari Narain expired in January, 1980 and the partnership firm stood dissolved and in terms of section 9(3) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (RST Act) the respondents Nos. 1-11 were brought on record under orders of the High Court on the delayed application of the petitioner during the pendency of the case before it after condonation of the delay. 5.. Respondent No. 12 is respondent pro forma. 6.. The assessee-dealer-M/s. Chottey Lal Mahad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fences, penalties and prosecutions, etc.-(1) If any person- (a)..................... (b) has without reasonable cause failed to pay the tax due within the time allowed, or, (c) has without reasonable cause failed to furnish the return of his turnover or failed to furnish it within the time allowed...................." 10.. Section 16(1), RST Act was amended with effect from May 4, 1964. Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 16, RST Act remained the same, clause (c), however, now read: "(c) has without reasonable cause failed to furnish within the time allowed the prescribed return or statistics or other information required to be furnished by or under the Act,............" 11.. With effect from May 2, 1969 the phrase "t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r's Circle "A" had not been validly constituted. The second was that the assessee had furnished an explanation and it was for the department to show that this was not reasonable cause for delay in furnishing returns or paying tax. The third was that a joint penalty for late submission of returns and non-payment of tax could not have been imposed. It was conceded by the department before the Board that at the relevant time there was no properly constituted Circle "A". The learned Member Mr. K.S. Lodha, as he then was sitting singly, held that the assessee in these circumstances could not and need not have filed returns or paid tax legitimately and, therefore, the imposition of penalty under section 16(1)(c), RST Act, could not be sustained a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... upheld by the High Court and therefore a validating Act had to be passed in 1967 to legalise its functioning. It was also held that what constitutes a reasonable cause in the given facts of a case is a question of fact and not of law and that the single Bench's decision was taken in the peculiar factual background of the case and did not raise any new or significant issue of law to warrant a reference being made to the High Court. 18.. On January 10, 1980 the petitioner moved an application under section 15(3A), RST Act, as it then stood, to the High Court for directing the Board to state the case and refer the question of law arising out of its order dated November 29, 1978. This application makes no reference to the Board's decisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... We do not propose to go into the question of whether the Board's decision of November 22, 1979 was within the stipulated time or not as it is not germane as against that order too even if made within the stipulated time an application seeking direction for a reference to be made lay to the High Court as it did on its failure to do so. It must, nonetheless, be said that it is perplexing, to say the least, that an application of January 10, 1980 did not refer to such a significant event that preceded it by nearly six weeks or that no effort was made even subsequently to bring it on record. The judgment of the Board of November 22, 1979 was brought to the Tribunal's attention by the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1-11 in the course of ....