1996 (9) TMI 572

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer passed an order of penalty under section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 by order dated March 31, 1986. In the said order of penalty, a demand was raised, both for penalty as well as tax due by the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner was already assessed to tax in May, 1982. Against the said demand, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commercial Tax Officer. It may be noted here that the assessee challenged only levy of penalty but not demand of tax by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, and penalty was the subject-matter of appeal. The Commercial Tax Officer, the first appellate authority, has, however, recorded the finding that the issuing of "C" f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be necessary to read the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 which is relevant for our purpose and they are as follows: "10-A. Imposition of penalty in lieu of prosecution.-(1) If any person purchasing goods is guilty of an offence under clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) of section 10, the authority who granted to him or, as the case may be, is competent to grant to him a certificate of registration under this Act, may, after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard, by order in writing, impose upon him by way of penalty a sum not exceeding one and a half times the tax which would have been levied under sub-section (2) o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....een levied, does not arise and in such a situation no penalty could be levied. What is contended is that for purpose of determining the penalty payable by any person, it is necessary that the order of assessment of tax should have been passed and should be in force. We are unable to accede to the contention of the learned counsel. In our view, "tax which would have been levied" itself makes it clear that for the purpose of measure of quantum of penalty that phrase has been used. It does not mean that at the time of passing the order imposing penalty, tax should have been assessed and the order of assessment should have been intact. It only means that penalty should be quantified at one and half times the tax which would have been levied, no....