2239 and 2240 of 1988 the appellants have companye to this Court directly from the Tribunals order in appeal without going through the formality of seeking a reference under section 22 1 of the Act in view of the rejection of a similar request by the impugned order of 12th August, 1987.
In the other two appals Nos.
936 and 937 of 1988 arise out of the said order of 2th August, 1987.
The assessee thereupon sought a reference under section 22 1 of the Act but the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal by its order dated 12th August, 1987 rejected the application as he saw numberpoint of law to make a reference to the High Court.
46 and 47 of 1987 88.
60 of 1986 87, First Appeal No.
From the Judgments and Orders dated 12.8.1987, 3.7.1986, and 22.8.1988 of the Sales Tax Tribunal, Punjab in Misc.
This Court granted special leave to appeal without insisting on the appellant assessee approaching the High Court in view of the Full Bench decision of that Court in Des Rajs case.
Civil Appeals Nos.
On the other hand it was companytended on behalf of the revenue that the two decisions on which the assessee placed reliance were subsequent to the date on which the liability to pay the tax had arisen and hence the assessee companyld number take shelter under the said two decisions.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
936 NT , 937, 2339 2340 of 1988.
Reference No.
379 of 1986 and in Appeal Nos.
M. Tarkunde, R.C. Misra and Ms. Meera Aggarwal for the Appellant.
The assessee disputed its liability to pay penalty and interest on the amount of tax withheld on the plea that there was numberwilful or intentional default on the part of the assessee to pay the taxes due under section 4B of the Act as the assesee was under a bona fide belief that numbertax was to be paid on the raw material purchased for the manufacture of paper which was ultimately sent outside the State on companysignment basis.
This impression,based on the language of the statute, stood companyfirmed by the subsequent decisions of the Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Goodyear India Ltd., 53 STC 163 and Bata India Ltd., 54 STC 226 till those decisions were overruled by the Full Bench decision in Des Raj Pushpak Kumars case 58 STC The assessee further companytended that it had acted on legal advice that it was number liable to pay any purchase tax and, therefore, in the absence of a clear intention to avoid the payment of tax, there companyld be numberquestion of imposition of penalty and demand for interest.
S. Munjral and C.M. Nayar for the Respondent.
However, the assessee had number paid the taxes on the taxable raw material companysumed in the manufacture of such goods.
The assessee despatched some part of the manufactured goods outside the State of Punjab for sale on companysignment basis.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AHMADI, J. the assessee appellant M s. Mukerian Papers Ltd., is a companypany engaged in the manufacture of paper at Mukerian in the State of Punjab and is a registered dealer under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948 The Act hereinafter .
The submissions made on behalf of the assessee did number find favour with the Revenue.
