1972 (3) TMI 75 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under section 15-A(I)(c) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.
2. Compliance with the procedure prescribed under section 15-A(3) of the Act.
3. Justification of upholding the penalty order while reducing the amount.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a case where the assessee, a company, was assessed to sales tax for the year 1958-59 and was required to pay a balance amount after depositing a partial sum. The Sales Tax Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 15-A(I)(c) of the Act due to non-payment within the specified time. The assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation, leading to the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 24,000. An appeal was filed, and the Assistant Commissioner set aside the penalty order citing procedural non-compliance by the Sales Tax Officer. The matter was then taken to the Additional Judge (Revisions), who reduced the penalty to Rs. 21,763.35, upholding the penalty order but limiting the amount. Subsequently, three questions were referred to the High Court for opinion, focusing on the procedural aspects and justification of the penalty order.

The central issue revolved around whether the dealer was given a fair opportunity to be heard before the penalty was imposed, as mandated by section 15-A(3) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The court reframed the questions to address this core concern. Section 15-A outlines the conditions for imposing penalties, emphasizing the necessity of providing a notice to the dealer and granting a reasonable opportunity to be heard before any penalty order is made. The court scrutinized the notice issued to the dealer, which clearly informed about the default in tax payment and the impending penalty, specifying a date for the dealer to show cause against the penalty.

The court rejected the argument that the notice only fulfilled the requirements of the proviso to section 15-A(1) and not section 15-A(3). It emphasized that the notice not only complied with the statutory requirement of informing the dealer but also provided an opportunity for the dealer to present their case on the specified date. The court distinguished a previous case where the absence of a specific date for appearance invalidated the opportunity to be heard, unlike in the present case where a date was fixed for the dealer to present their case. Consequently, the court concluded that section 15-A(3) was fully adhered to in this instance, and the dealer was given a reasonable opportunity to be heard before the penalty imposition.

In light of the detailed analysis and the fulfillment of procedural requirements, the court answered the reframed question affirmatively, stating that the dealer was indeed given an opportunity to be heard before the penalty was imposed as per section 15-A(3) of the Act. The court directed each party to bear their own costs in this reference, thereby settling the matter conclusively.