1981 (11) TMI 172 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Imposition of penalty under different sections of the Sales Tax Act for concealment of turnover.
- Justification of setting aside penalties imposed under section 27(2) of the Act.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the imposition of penalties under different sections of the Sales Tax Act for the concealment of turnover by a dealer. The Tribunal referred questions regarding the justification of setting aside penalties under section 27(2) of the Act for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66.

2. For the assessment year 1964-65, the dealer was found to have concealed turnover, leading to penalties imposed under sections 19(1) and 27(2) of the Act. The Board of Revenue (Tribunal) set aside the penalty under section 27(2) based on the argument that penalty under section 19(1) already covered the concealment. However, the High Court disagreed, stating that both penalties could be imposed for different purposes, and section 27(2) serves to safeguard customer interests by ensuring the issuance of bills and cash memos.

3. Similarly, for the assessment year 1965-66, penalties were imposed under sections 43(1) and 27(2) of the Act for concealing turnover and not issuing cash memos. The Tribunal again set aside the penalty under section 27(2), but the High Court held that this penalty was distinct from penalties under sections 19(1) and 43(1), emphasizing the different purposes served by each section.

4. The High Court cited precedents to support its decision, highlighting that penalties under sections 19, 43, and 27 of the Act can be imposed separately for different violations related to turnover concealment and compliance with statutory obligations. The Court concluded that the Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the penalties under section 27(2) for both assessment years, ruling in favor of the department and against the assessee.

5. In conclusion, the High Court upheld the imposition of penalties under section 27(2) of the Sales Tax Act for the dealer's failure to issue cash memos and vouchers, rejecting the Tribunal's decision to set aside these penalties based on penalties imposed under other sections. No costs were awarded in the judgment.