2014 (6) TMI 866

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ad turn over below the limit as prescribed under the Finance Act, (for brevity, 'the Act') 1994, in the respective years in which assessment was taken up. The petitioner also has a contention that the penalty imposed being under Sections 76 and 78 of the Act, cannot be sustained by virtue of the Proviso introduced to Section 78 of the Act by an amendment brought to the Act on 10.05.2008. Immediately, it has to be noticed that, the contentions substantially raised herein, were also raised in another proceeding before this Court itself, in an another Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. This Court by Ext.P4 specifically found that, the penalty under Sections 76 and 78 of the Act has been held to be permi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed has not been adjusted as is evidenced from Ext.P5, and in calculating the penalty under Sections 76 and 78 of the Act, the amounts already paid have also been taken into account. Ext.P5 is an order issued, pursuant to the directions of this Court directing credit to be given to all payments effected by the petitioner. Paragraph 6 of Ext.P5 takes in Rs.3,44,304/- as the tax paid by the petitioner. The balance tax payable is computed at Rs.2,54,194/-. Hence, the computation of amounts cannot be faulted and definitely credit has been given to the payments made by the petitioner. 5. Next contention is with respect to the imposition of penalty on the amounts deposited by the petitioner. It is very evident that, the penalty has been imposed....