- (1.) THE facts giving rise to this application for revision under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 may be briefly summed up. THE applicant was assessed to tax on his turnover of Rs. 3,78,969-98 np. for the period 1-4-1960 to 31-3-1961. THE amount of tax assessed was Rs. 15,727. 98 np. THE assessee did not file any quarterly returns nor did he deposit any tax along with these returns. Instead he submitted a consolidated statement of turnover for the purpose of assessment and paid the amount of Rs. 5,000/- on 8-12-1962. In this manner the assessee retained with him the tax payable quarterly for a long period. THE Sales Tax Officer, Jaipur, accordingly imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,500/- on the assessee under sec. 16 (l) (b) and (c) of the Act. THE assessee went in appeal to the Deputy Commissioner and contested the legality of the penalty and also urged that he had no due opportunity of being heard before the penalty was imposed. Both these contentions were rejected.
(2.) HERE before me the only ground urged is that since the penalty had not been separately determined under secs. 16 (l) (b) and 16 (l) (c) the order imposing the penalty was bad. It has further been urged that no penalty could be imposed under sec. 16 (1) (b), and that since a composite penalty has been determined under the two aforesaid provisions, it is bad. In support of this argument, it has been urged that sec. 16 (l) (b) refers to failure to pay the tax due within the time allowed, and that "tax due" means the tax which has been assessed and demanded, and not the tax which becomes payable on the happening of a taxable event. In support of this argument, the learned counsel for the assessee has cited S. T. G. (1964) 15 p. 487 wherein it has been held that there is a distinction between 'tax payable" and "tax due", and that the tax becomes payable when the taxable event arises, but that "tax due" is a tax when it becomes a debt, having been determined by assessment and a notice of demand has issued. With all respect, I agree with this ruling. Therefore, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee under sec. 16 (l) (b) simply because he had failed to submit the quarterly returns within the prescribed time and to submit treasury certificates to the effect that the tax payable on his turnover during these quarters had been paid. However, penalty can be legally imposed under sec. 16 (l) (c) for failure without reasonable cause to furnish the prescribed return within the "prescribed time" which I construe to be synonymous with the expression "time allowed". Now remains the question whether an order which purports to say that a penalty is imposed in a specified amount under two provisions of law - one of which was not applicable - is valid. On this point, the learned counsel has cited S. T. C. 1955 p. 627 which is a decision of the Supreme Court. It has been held in that case that when an assessment consists of a single undivided sum in respect of the totality of the property treated as assessable, the wrongful inclusion in it of certain items of property which were not assessable renders the assessment invalid in toto. Applying the principle underlying this ruling, I consider that the order of the Assessing Authority imposing a composite penalty under two provisions of the law - one of which was not applicable - is bad. However, this does not prevent a penalty being imposed by me sitting in revision. I consider (hat the assessee has committed a serious default in retaining the tax payable for a lung time. The amount so retained is above Rs. 13,700/-, and the period for which it has been retained is very long. Under 19 (l) (c) a penalty can be imposed upto one half of the amount of the tax payable, which means that a penalty upto Rs. 6,850/- could be legally imposed. In these circumstances, the penalty of Rs. 2,500/- is justified. As a result of the foregoing discussing, I reject this application for revision. .;