SHIV INDUSTRIES Vs. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard finally. This writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed to quash order of penalty Rs. 2,03,830 imposed by assessing officer dated October 4, 2004 vide annexure P6, under section 69(2) of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994.

(2.) In brief the facts of the case are that the petitioner is registered dealer under the provision of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 and is dealing in the business of manufacturing and sale of water cooler, cooling pump, iron almirah, etc. The assessment of commercial tax for the period April 1, 1997 to March 31, 1998 was made by an order dated May 25, 2000 (annexure P5). On June 12, 1997, the business premises of the petitioner were inspected by the Commercial Tax Department/(respondents), the books of account and other related documents were seized during the course of inspection. The petitioner asked for copies of accounts book, etc., but the same were not supplied even after written demand by the petitioner on June 16, 1997, August 12, 1997 and dated August 13, 1997. The assessment was done on May 25, 2000 by the Commercial Tax Officer, Satna and for the penalty under the provision of section 69 of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 separate proceeding were ordered to be initiated.

(3.) On October 4, 2004, the assessing officer, i.e., respondent No. 1 had initiated the penalty proceedings under section 69(2) of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, and Rs. 2,03,830 as penalty was imposed. The petitioner had preferred a revision before respondent No. 2, and submitted that against the original assessment order in which the taxable turnover was determined, was already a subject -matter of appeal before the appellate authority, hence the penalty imposed against the petitioner be set aside or be kept in abeyance till the appeal is decided by the Commercial Tax Appellate Board, Bhopal. However, the revisional authority had not considered the objection and dismissed the revision petition on June 25, 2005 vide order annexure P7. This order is under challenge on the ground that during pendency of appeal, such order could not have been framed because it was not found that the petitioner had deliberately concealed its turnover.