1982 (11) TMI 151 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Impugned order of Assessing Authority, Penalty under section 46 of Haryana General Sales Tax Act, Vires of section 46, Excessive delegation of legislative power, Continuing liability for penalty, Composite order for penalty, Opportunity to show cause against penalty quantification.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order of the Assessing Authority imposing a penalty under section 46 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act for not filing returns in time and not depositing the tax. The petitioner filed all three returns together after the due date and did not pay the sales tax for the period. The penalty imposed, along with interest, amounted to Rs. 9,567. The petitioner's counsel argued that section 46 suffered from excessive delegation of legislative power and gave uncontrolled power to the authority to impose penalties. However, a Division Bench judgment of the High Court had already settled this issue against the petitioner, stating that the legislature had prescribed the minimum and maximum penalty amounts, and the authority had to follow certain safeguards before imposing penalties.

The petitioner's counsel also contended that a composite order imposing penalty for the entire delay period was improper, and separate orders should have been passed for each day's delay. Citing a Gujarat High Court judgment, the court held that for continuing liabilities, periodic notices were not necessary, and the burden was on the dealer to stop the liability by providing reasons to the authorities. In this case, the petitioner failed to provide any reasonable cause for the delays despite multiple opportunities, leading to the dismissal of this argument.

The court dismissed the petition, upholding the penalty imposed by the Assessing Authority. Additionally, since the petitioner had utilized the amount owed to the government for his own use due to a stay order, the court imposed costs of Rs. 2,000 on the petitioner, which the State Government could recover along with the outstanding amount under the Act. The judgment emphasized the importance of complying with tax obligations and the consequences of delaying or avoiding payment.