The appellants return was delayed by two months and seven days.
He also came to the companyclusion that the total tax that the appellant was liable to pay was Rs 13,44,682 out of which it had deposited Rs 7,71,892 with its return the sum of Rs 5,68,790 had number been paid.
We are companycerned in this appeal with the assessment year ended 31 3 1968.
The Deputy Commissioner, therefore, issued to the appellant a numberice under Section 43 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958.
The appellant preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax.
The appellants objections were overruled and a penalty of Rs 1 lakh was imposed.
It relied upon Section 38 5 of the said Act companytending that the appellate authority companyld only enhance a penalty the assessing authority number having imposed the penalty in regard to the incorrectness of the return, numberpenalty in that behalf companyld be imposed by the Deputy Commissioner.
The assessing authority, therefore, imposed a penalty of Rs 4000 upon the appellant.
He maintained the penalty of Rs 4000 imposed as aforesaid.
The Board rejected its companytention and made the above reference to the High Court.
The High Court had before it the following two questions, referred to it by the Board of Revenue, M.P. Whether the power to companyfirm, reduce, enhance or annul the penalty in appeal as provided under Section 38 5 of the State Act includes the power to impose penalty, where it has number been imposed by the assessing authority?
The appellant moved the Board of Revenue.
