TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (5) TMI 409
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rty No. 1. For three periods, i.e., (a) April and May, 1995, (b) June, 1995 and (c) July, 1995, petitioner filed returns disclosing the admitted taxable turnover and the tax payable. However, the admitted tax was not deposited. Proceeding under section 13(5) of the Act was initiated. In response to the show cause notice, petitioner took a stand that it was to receive large amounts from State Government for the supplies effected and on account of non-receipt thereof there was unintended default in making the deposit of admitted tax. The Sales Tax Officer found that as compared to the sales effected for the periods in question, the amount receivable from the State Government was comparatively low. Penalties of Rs. 50,000 for the first period,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er to pay. (iv) That for the belated payment of the demands dues, the petitioner has also been charged interest under section 13(6) of the Act and as such the present penalty under section 13(5) is a double punishment for one offence. (v) That as per provisions of section 13(5) of the Act, penalties should have been imposed in doses by instalments from time to time but in the instant case the learned assessing officer has made a departure from the settled principles of law. The Additional Commissioner who heard and disposed of the revision application endorsed the view of the Sales Tax Officer that the amount receivable from Government departments was of a very small magnitude when compared to the total sales effected. It was further obs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Government departments, the details of which were submitted before the authorities, the levy of penalty is not proper. The details placed before the authorities were not properly analysed. Merely because some payments were made to the petitioner, that did not absolve the concerned departments of the liability to make deduction under section 13-AAA and to make the deposit. Had that procedure been adopted, liability of the petitioner would have been substantially reduced and there would not have been any occasion for resorting to penal provision. It is urged that the relevant factors were not considered by the authorities and on erroneous interpretation of fact situation the conclusions have been arrived at. Mr. S.C. Lal, learned Senior Sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation. Penalty also will not be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances. 7.. There are some unusual features involved in the case. The authorities appear to have laid emphasis on the fact that for the periods in question certain amounts had been received. However, there is no finding recorded as regards the petitioner's claim that substantial amounts were receivable from Government which are to the tune of more than Rs. 40 lakhs. It is the petiti....