Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.24 seconds)Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Gangaram Chapolia on 2 April, 1975
"Penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. Though the language of the section does not give any indication as to how the discretion of the taxing authority is to be exercised, the onus on the dealer would be discharged by preponderance of probabilities as in a civil case and not beyond reasonable doubt. Reference in this connection may be made to the observations in the judgment in S.J.C. No. 17 of 1973 (Commissioner of Income-tax, Orissa v. Gangaram Chapolia) and O.J.C. No. 684 of 1974 (Gangaram Chapolia v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Orissa) delivered on 2nd April, 1975 [1976] 103 ITR 613 (Orissa) [FB]. Those observations have no strict application to the facts of this case as they were made under the provisions of the Income-tax Act and with different wordings. Reference has been made to those observations only to give a clear picture of the nature of the onus on the dealer and the manner in which judicial determination is to be made by the taxing authority."
Gujarat Travancore Agency, Cochin vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Kerala, ... on 2 May, 1989
The view expressed by this Court in Gangaram Chapolia's case [1976] 103 ITR 613 [FB] has been approved by the Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Travancore Agency, Cochin v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Kerala reported in [1989] 177 ITR 455 (SC) ; (1989) II SVLR (T) 214. However, that is not relevant for our purpose. Dealing with an identical contention raised on behalf of the Revenue, this Court held in the case of Patnaik & Co. (P.)
The Hingir-Rampur Coal Co., Ltd. And ... vs The State Of Orissa And Others on 21 November, 1960
Ltd. v. State of Orissa reported in [1975] 36 STC 362 at page 366 :
M/S. Nand Lal Raj Kishan vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Delhi And ... on 14 March, 1961
We concur with the views expressed. Even though a hearing has not been specifically provided for, before imposition of penalty under Section 13(5), yet principles of natural justice require extending such an opportunity. Our view finds support from decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nand Lal Raj Kishan v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi reported in [1961] 12 STC 324. In that case the Supreme Court was dealing with the legality of demanding additional security. The relevant Section 8A of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, which was in force in Delhi did not provide for any enquiry before demand of security. It did not provide for an opportunity being given to the person against whom the order was proposed to be passed, of being heard before such an order was passed. The court overruled the contention that the authority proposing to demand security was not fettered by any restriction and that no opportunity was required to be extended before demand of the security. The court at page 329 held as follows :
Hindustan Steel Ltd vs State Of Orissa on 4 August, 1969
(iii) Even conceding that the purported orders under Section 13(4)(a) were authorised in law, yet in view of the fact that the petitioner had acted bona fide, in good faith believing that the tax rate applicable to it was 3 per cent, the question of imposition of any penalty does not arise. Reliance is placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1970] 25 STC 211. The Additional Commissioner and the Commissioner did not act in accordance with law, and without considering the relevant materials upheld the levy of penalty. The Commissioner should have interfered though the petitioner was to get relief, and though there was no loss of revenue.
The Food Corporations Act, 1964
The Orient Paper Mills Ltd vs The State Of Orissa And Others(And ... on 24 March, 1961
Further, in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Orient Paper Mills v. State of Orissa [1988] 70 STC 333 ; (1988) 1 OLR 467, the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to revise an order passed by the Additional Commissioner and therefore, the action of the Commissioner cannot be called in question. Tax becomes due as soon as a sale is effected and therefore, expression "tax due" cannot be construed to mean "tax due" as per return filed.
1