9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1973 (3) TMI 113 - SC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether the High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that the Sales Tax Officer, Ghaziabad, had no jurisdiction to impose penalty on the assessee? Held that - Appeal allowed. If the Sales Tax Officer was competent to levy sales tax on the assessee in respect of those assessment years, he was equally competent to levy penalty on the assessee in respect of the offences committed during those years. In our opinion, the High Court did not properly appreciate the legal position in this case. The High Court was wrong in thinking that the proceedings initiated on January 8, 1960, stood terminated as a result of the subsequent notices issued by the Sales Tax Officer. The notices issued by him are not statutory notices. Under section 10-A of the Act, the Sales Tax Officer was only required to give reasonable opportunity to the assessee to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on him.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Sales Tax Officer, Ghaziabad, to initiate penalty proceedings. 2. Whether the assessee acted with guilty mind and fraudulently. 3. Justification of penalty imposition under Section 10(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of Sales Tax Officer, Ghaziabad: The primary issue was whether the Sales Tax Officer, Ghaziabad, had the jurisdiction to initiate and impose penalties on the assessee after the jurisdiction was transferred to the Sales Tax Officer, Lucknow. The court examined Section 10-A and Section 9(3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, along with the relevant rules under the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. Section 10-A empowers the authority who granted the registration certificate or is competent to grant it to impose penalties. The court noted that the Sales Tax Officer, Ghaziabad, initially granted the registration certificate, but with effect from March 28, 1960, the jurisdiction was transferred to the Sales Tax Officer, Lucknow. Therefore, the Sales Tax Officer, Lucknow, was deemed the competent authority to take penalty proceedings under Section 10-A from that date. The court concluded that the Sales Tax Officer, Ghaziabad, lacked jurisdiction to impose penalties after the transfer of jurisdiction, answering the first question in the negative. 2. Guilty Mind and Fraudulent Representation: The second issue was whether the assessee made representations with a guilty mind, fraudulently and falsely, knowing that the purchased goods were not covered by the registration certificate. The High Court did not address this question initially because it had already ruled in favor of the assessee on the jurisdiction issue. 3. Justification of Penalty under Section 10(b): The third issue was whether the imposition of penalty under Section 10(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act was justified if the answer to the second question was negative. Again, this question was not addressed by the High Court due to its ruling on the first issue. Supreme Court Judgment: The Supreme Court analyzed the High Court's decision and the relevant statutory provisions. It emphasized that the Sales Tax Officer, Ghaziabad, who granted the registration certificate, was competent to levy penalties for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60, even if the jurisdiction was later transferred to Lucknow. The court stated that the penalty proceedings initiated on January 8, 1960, were valid and did not terminate due to subsequent notices. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court misinterpreted the legal position and set aside its order. The case was remanded to the High Court for answering the remaining questions regarding the assessee's guilty mind and the justification of the penalty under Section 10(b). The appeals were allowed, and the costs were to be determined in the cause. Conclusion: The Supreme Court clarified that the Sales Tax Officer, Ghaziabad, had the jurisdiction to impose penalties for the relevant assessment years, and remanded the case to the High Court for further consideration of the remaining issues. The decision underscored the importance of the authority who initially granted the registration certificate in penalty proceedings under the Central Sales Tax Act.
|
