Judgment:
W.P.No.14170/2012 07.09.2012 Shri Sanjay Mishra, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri P.K.Kaurav, Dy.
Advocate General for respondents.
Though the case is listed today for hearing on admission, but as per the prayer of the parties, the mater is heard finally.
This petition is directed against an order dated 26.09.2011 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Additional Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Jabalpur by which the petitioner has been imposed 1% Entry Tax on the price of Bardana and penalty three times of the tax on the aforesaid item.
In the petition, the petitioner's sole contention is that the factum of Bardana was already disclosed by the petitioner in the return.
It was not a concealment of fact but the petitioner had bonafidely disclosed that there were no such purchases liable for entry tax, so no tax was paid but the assessing officer imposed the penalty.
The revisional authority though modified the penalty but has also directed imposition of three times of tax as penalty.
It is submitted that there was no concealment of the fact but the revisional authority without considering the same decided the revision.
Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that before the respondent No.2 in the revision memo this ground was not specifically raised, though it has been considered in the revisional order.
But, in absence of any specific ground before the revisional authority, the revisional authority has rightly decided the revision.
However, it was submitted by Shri Kaurav that in case the aforesaid aspect has not been considered properly, the matter may be remanded back to the respondent No2.
for fresh adjudication.
To this, learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection.
As the question of imposition of penalty is only involved in the matter, the matter is remanded back to the respondent No.2 to consider the question of imposition of penalty.
The revisional authority after hearing the petitioner shall pass an order in respect of the penalty in regard to Entry Tax on Bardana only.
The petitioner shall remain present personally before the revisional authority on 01.11.2012 and for that no notice shall be required.
The revisional authority shall consider and decide the matter expeditiously as far as possible within a period of 60 days from the aforesaid date after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
With the aforesaid, this writ petition stands finally disposed of, with no order as to costs.
(Krishn Kumar Lahoti) (Smt.
Vimla Jain) Judge Judge psm