Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.19 seconds)
M/S. Narendra Products vs Cce, Kanpur on 31 May, 2001 cites

Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar vs U.O.I. And Others on 6 August, 1999

5. Moreover, the Apex Court has interpreted the provisions of Rule 173Q in Z.B. Nagarkar's case, supra, and has held that the word 'liable' has been used in Rule 173Q which means, as per Black's Law Dictionary, responsible; chargeable, answerable, compellable to make satisfaction, compensation, or restitution.....Obligated. The Supreme Court held that "It is difficult to accept the argument of the appellant that levy of penalty is discretionary. It is only the amount of penalty which is discretionary. Both things are necessary: (1) goods are liable to confiscation and (2) persons concerned is liable to penalty."
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 261 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document

State Of Tamil Nadu vs Abirami Agencies on 16 September, 1992

Even in Abirami Agencies case, supra, the Sales Tax Tribunal had set aside the penalty observing that in its monthly return the respondent had reported turnover and remitted the tax due thereon and holding that the failure to post the sales in question in the accounts on the date of inspection did not amount to wilful omission or non-disclosure warranting levy of penalty. The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by the State of Tamil Nadu holding that it is not necessary that every case of assessment under Section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act warrants an automatic levy of penalty under Section 12(3) of the Act and that the question of wilfulness on the part of the dealer in suppressing a particular turnover and whether the dealer was guilty of wilful non-disclosure of particular item of turnover concerned, have got to be considered and decided. Applying these test to the facts of the present matter, penalty is to be imposed as the Appellants had suppressed the production and clearance of excisable goods for four months; they did not disclose the same as neither entry of production and clearance was made in RG1 Register nor the transactions were reflected in Monthly Returns (RT-12).
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1