AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Penalty order passed on 18-11-1997 under Section 12-B(3) have been assailed in this petition.
Petitioner has not appeared.
In the petition it is mentioned that the order passed is without considering the reply.
Reliance is placed on the judgment given in Elestone Estate and Industries Limited v State of Karnataka, 1983(2) Kar. L.J. 345, wherein it was observed as follows:
"Section 12-B(3) is penal in nature. In each case, the authority must first examine after a reasonable opportunity to the party whether there was good or sufficient cause for the default and if not, whether the party has acted in conscious disregard of its obligation and acted deliberately. If the party is guilty of such conduct, the authority must examine the question as to the amount to be levied as penalty".
Reliance is also placed on the judgment given in the case of M/s. Mysore Kirloskar Limited, Harihar v State of Karnataka, 1997(43) Kar. L.J. 294 (HC):
"Penalty is not ordinarily imposble unless party had acted deliberately in defiance of law or in conscious disregard of its obligations or is guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest".
In the objections filed on behalf of the respondent it is stated that along with the assessment order demand notice for Rs. 1,13,148/- was served on 12-2-1996. Notice under Section 12-A was issued on 22-2-1997. Petitioner filed the reply dated 24-3-1997 and the details of purchase turnover were also filed. It was only after considering the reply order creating the liability was passed. Thereafter, petitioner filed an application contending that provision of Rule 6(4)(m), Explanations 1 and 2 have not been considered. This was rejected by endorsement dated 18-11-1997. In spite of the fact that assessment orders have been passed on 1-1-1996, and revisional order dated 23-9-1997, since no tax was paid and the cheques issued bounced, action under Section 12-B(3) was taken. Reply to the show-cause notice to the penalty has not yet been received by the respondent as alleged in the petition, the cheques have bounced and there is no proper explanation and even the petitioner is not present.
No case for interference is made out.
Petition is dismissed.