1978 (8) TMI 196 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Section 46 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973
2. Alleged lack of legislative guidelines for penalties under Section 46
3. Potential multiple penalties under Sections 25 and 46
4. Alleged criminality and double jeopardy under Section 51
5. Validity of rules governing the submission of returns under Section 25

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of Section 46 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973
The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Section 46, arguing that it vested unguided discretion in the Commissioner or his delegate to impose penalties ranging from Rs. 5 to Rs. 10 per day for failure to file tax returns. The court rejected this argument, noting that the legislature had prescribed both a minimum and maximum penalty, which provided a narrow and reasonable range. The court emphasized that discretion is necessary to address varying circumstances, from willful default to inadvertent omissions. The court also highlighted safeguards within Section 46, including the requirement for a reasonable opportunity to be heard and the condition that penalties are imposed only if the default is without sufficient cause.

2. Alleged Lack of Legislative Guidelines for Penalties Under Section 46
The petitioner argued that Section 46 lacked guidelines, leaving the penalty amount to the whim of the Commissioner. The court found this argument misconceived, stating that the legislature had already set a narrow range for penalties, which inherently provided guidelines. The court also noted that complete elimination of discretion in penalty imposition was neither possible nor desirable, as it would fail to account for the wide variety of situations that could arise.

3. Potential Multiple Penalties Under Sections 25 and 46
The petitioner contended that failure to file returns could expose a dealer to multiple penalties under Sections 25 and 46, violating Articles 14 and 20 of the Constitution. The court clarified that the failure to deposit tax and the failure to submit returns are distinct issues. Section 25(5) deals with interest on unpaid tax, while Section 46 addresses penalties for not filing returns. The court emphasized that these provisions operate in different fields and are not cumulative. Section 47, which deals with penalties for failure to pay tax, also includes safeguards like the requirement for a hearing and limits on the penalty amount.

4. Alleged Criminality and Double Jeopardy Under Section 51
The petitioner argued that the failure to file returns could be criminalized under Section 51, invoking double jeopardy concerns under Article 20. The court dismissed this argument, noting that the default under Sections 25 and 46 did not constitute a criminal offense. The court also pointed out that Section 51 applies only where no other penalty is provided under the Act, making it inapplicable when Sections 25 and 46 already address the issue.

5. Validity of Rules Governing the Submission of Returns Under Section 25
The petitioner claimed that no rules had been framed under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, for a considerable time, making Section 25 inoperative. The court refuted this by referencing Section 65 of the Act and Section 22 of the Punjab General Clauses Act, 1898, which ensured the continuity of rules from the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. The court noted that the Haryana General Sales Tax Rules, 1975, were later enacted, repealing the earlier rules and providing a valid framework for the submission of returns.

Conclusion
The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the constitutionality of Section 46 and rejecting all arguments raised by the petitioner. The petitioner was advised to pursue ordinary remedies by way of appeal if available. The judgment was concurred by both judges.

Petition dismissed.

← Previous Next →