1975 (8) TMI 108 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Reasonable excuse for utilizing goods for processing cloth of outside parties.
2. Quantum of penalty under section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Reasonable Excuse for Utilizing Goods for Processing Cloth of Outside Parties

The first issue pertains to whether the applicant-assessee had a reasonable excuse for utilizing dyes and chemicals purchased against C form declarations for processing the cloth of outside parties, which would exempt them from penalties under section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

The Tribunal recorded two key findings of fact:
- The sister concern of the assessee did not prove to have received any urgent orders from the Government.
- Even if such orders were received, the sister concern could have purchased the goods from the open market, and the assessee was not obliged to use the dyes and chemicals purchased against C forms for the sister concern.

The Tribunal also found that the assessee failed to prove that business expediency required the use of the goods in breach of the C form undertaking. These findings were deemed purely factual, and thus, the court concluded that the first question did not involve any question of law.

The court rejected the assessee's reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa, which held that penalties should not be imposed for technical breaches unless the conduct was contumacious or dishonest. The court found that the assessee acted in conscious disregard of its obligation under the C form undertaking, making the breach more than merely technical.

2. Quantum of Penalty under Section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956

The second issue concerns the correct quantum of penalty under section 10A of the Act. The assessee contended that the penalty should be based on the concessional tax rates under section 8(1) of the Act, which were 2% before July 1, 1966, and 3% thereafter. Therefore, the penalty should be 3% before July 1, 1966, and 4.5% after that date.

The court examined the relevant provisions of the Act, particularly sections 8 and 10A. Section 8(1) provides for a concessional tax rate of 3% for sales in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, provided certain conditions are met, including the use of goods as specified in the C form. Section 8(2) provides for a normal tax rate of 10% if these conditions are not met.

Section 10A allows for a penalty of up to one-and-a-half times the tax that would have been levied "if the offence had not been committed." The court interpreted this to mean that the penalty should be based on the normal tax rate under section 8(2), not the concessional rate under section 8(1). The court reasoned that goods used in breach of the C form undertaking should be treated as if no declaration had been made, thereby attracting the normal tax rate.

The court rejected the assessee's interpretation that the penalty should be based on the concessional rate, as this would result in an absurdity where a defaulter would be in a better position than an honest dealer who pays the normal tax rate. The court found support for its interpretation from decisions of other High Courts, including the Mysore, Orissa, Kerala, and Jammu and Kashmir High Courts.

The court also noted that the subsequent amendment to section 10A clarified that the penalty should be calculated based on the tax under section 8(2), but this did not change the legal position as it stood before the amendment.

In conclusion, the court answered the second question in the affirmative, upholding the Tribunal's decision that the penalty should be based on the normal tax rate under section 8(2).

Conclusion

The court refused to give an opinion on the first question, as it involved purely factual findings. On the second question, the court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, holding that the penalty under section 10A should be based on the normal tax rate under section 8(2) of the Act, not the concessional rate under section 8(1). The reference was disposed of accordingly, with the applicant-company bearing its own costs and those of the opponents.