1984 (5) TMI 24

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sst. Year 1964-65 : " Whether the Tribunal were justified in law in reducing the penalty to Rs. 346 as against Rs. 7,272 imposed by the WTO ? " Asst. Year 1965-66: " Whether the Tribunal were justified in law in reducing the penalty to Rs. 367 as against Rs. 7,707 imposed by the WTO?" Asst. Year 1966-67: " Whether the Tribunal were justified in law in reducing the penalty to Rs. 367 as against Rs. 7,707 imposed by the WTO ?" Asst. Year 1967-68 : " Whether the Tribunal were justified in law in reducing the penalty to Rs. 406 as against Rs. 3,399 imposed by the WTO ?" Asst. Year 1968-69: " Whether the Tribunal were justified in law in reducing the penalty to Rs. 342 as against Rs. 8,755 imposed by the WTO ?" The statement of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... statement of case. The consolidated order of the AAC has been marked annex. B. The order of the Tribunal has been marked annex. C forming part of the statement of the case. The orders of the Tribunal in the case of the other assessee aforementioned, namely, Saraswati Devi, has been marked annex. D forming part of the statement of the case. We, therefore, have to fall back upon the orders of the Tribunal in the case of Saraswati Devi, annex. D, for the reasons which have impelled the Tribunal to reduce the quantum of penalty for each year in question with regard to the present assessee. The reasons recorded by the Tribunal with regard to the quantum of penalty, which find place in annex. D, were that the WTO had calculated the penalty fo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....um of penalty with effect from April 1, 1969. The amendment was with regard to a substantative law and not merely a procedural law and it substantially affected the liability of the assessee to his prejudice. The amendment could not be considered as a procedural law and, therefore, the law could not have any retrospective operation unless there is a specific provision made in the Act for that purpose. The date of filing of the return could not be the relevant criterion for applying the provision of particular law unless the statute provides so either expressly or by necessary intendment. The Tribunal, accordingly, did not uphold the imposition of penalty at the enhanced rates which was sought to be defended by the Revenue on the basis of th....