RAMESH CHAND LAKHIMAL Vs. THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the orders Annexure P -4 dated 7.01.05 passed by the Assessing Officer imposing a penalty under Section 69(2) of the M. P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 and the order Annexure P -5 dated 20th July, 2006 passed by the revisional authority dismissing the revision petition, assessee has filed this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution.

(2.) PETITIONER was a registered dealer liable for payment of tax under the M. P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994. Petitioner is engaged in the business of sale and purchase of various agricultural products including Soyabean and for the period 1.04.96 to 31.03.97, assessment proceedings were concluded and the assessment order was passed on 26.08.04. It was found that various sales both inter -state and intra -state were made by the petitioner and a tax of Rs. 2,29,600/ - was levied by the assessing officer for the period in question. The assessment order is Annexure P -1 dated 26th August, 2004.

(3.) SHRI Sanjay Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa : (1970) 26 STC 302 (SC) followed by a Bench of this court in the case of Bhawanidas Laxman Das Vs. Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax, Jabalpur & others,, (2006) 9 STJ 110 (MP) to say that imposition of penalty is a separate quasi -criminal proceeding and while imposing the penalty, the requirement of law which includes an opportunity of hearing should be followed. He further invites our attention to a judgment of this Court in the case of S. R. Kalani & Co. Vs. C. L. Sharma & another, (2004) 3 STJ 282 (MP) followed by a Co -ordinate Bench of this Court in W. P. No. 7650/06 decided on 31.01.13 to say that in a proceeding for imposition of penalty, the assessee is entitled to adduce evidence and to show that in the facts and circumstances, no penalty should be imposed.