TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (1) TMI 374
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tate of Bihar. By these writ petitions, the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the respondents imposing penalties under section 25(3) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and/or penalties imposed by the respondents under section 16(9) of the Act; the appellate orders confirming the penalties and the order passed by the Chairman of the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Bihar, Patna, in the revision applications. 3.. The petitioner has not only challenged the order imposing penalties for non-payment of sales tax "surcharge" in time and the revisional order confirming the same, on the basis of the merit of each case, but also has challenged the validity of rule 33(8)(a) of the Bihar Sales Tax Rul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....surcharge". When the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, thereby the stay was vacated, the petitioner approached the respondentsState for payment of sales tax "surcharge" by way of instalments. On November 25, 1983, vide annexure 1, the respondents stayed immediate recovery and asked the appropriate authority to intimate as to in how many instalments the payable sales tax "surcharge" is to be recovered. But the order finally went against the petitioner relating to instalments on March 1, 1984 when the respondents disagreed for instalments. 5.. The petitioner thereafter again moved this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 2176 of 1986 praying therein for direction to the respondents for recovery of sales tax "surcharge" by way of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich is the subject-matter of C.W.J.C. No. 3073 of 1989. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed four appeal petitions before the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. Therein he has challenged the penalties imposed on the petitioner by different orders, as aforesaid, on merit. The petitioner pointed out therein that there was no laches on the part of the petitioner in making payment of sales tax "surcharge". Further the petitioner brought to his notice the different orders of stay passed by one or other court with respect to payment of sales tax "surcharge" and stay granted by the State Government, as well as instalments relating to repayment of sales tax "surcharge" as agreed before the High Court on May 14, 1986. All ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Rules, the revision applications stood dismissed because of the order of the Chairman of the Tribunal, without referring to any other Member, the other post of Member being vacant at that point of time. 9.. The petitioner has challenged the appellate orders (annexure 6 to the respective writ petitions) confirming the penalties imposed under section 25(3) and/or section 16(9) of the Act. The petitioner has also challenged the proviso to rule 33(8)(a) of the Rules with prayer to declare the same as ultra vires. 10.. Counsel for the petitioner while brought to our notice all the chronological events relating to levying of sales tax "surcharge", stay of the same by one or other court; stay of the same by the State Government; and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y one or other court and/or by the State Government. Thereafter full payment of sales tax "surcharge" has not been made at a time, the instalments having been fixed by this Court on the basis of the agreements with the respondents. Further counsel for the petitioner stated that the full payment of sales tax "surcharge" for the period, in question, has been made by the petitioner in due time, by various instalments, as ordered by this Court, receipt for such payment has been annexed as annexure 4 to the respective writ petitions. By fulfilling all the requirements, as aforesaid, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the penalty imposed on the petitioner was completely illegal and confirmation of the same by the appellate authority vide i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ordance with the opinion of the Chairman." 15.. Counsel for the petitioner made various submissions relating to legality of the aforesaid proviso to rule 33(8)(a) of the Rules and contended that the said proviso of the Rules should be declared ultra vires and the revisional orders should be referred to a third Member. 16.. As we are going to dispose of these writ petitions on the basis of the merits of the petitioner's case, we feel there is no necessity in going into the second contention of the petitioner as to whether the proviso to rule 33(8)(a) of the Rules is ultra vires or not. 17.. Mr. Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the respondents has not disputed the facts, as narrated above. He has also accepted that after the v....