1983 (12) TMI 262 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under section 15-A(1)(a) and (c) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.
2. Burden of proof on the department to establish deliberate concealment of turnover.
3. Evaluation of mens rea in penalty proceedings.
4. Application of legal principles from Income-tax Act to Sales Tax Act penalty proceedings.

The judgment involves a revision under section 11(1) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act challenging the imposition of a penalty on a dealer for allegedly furnishing inaccurate particulars of turnover and concealing substantial turnover. The Sales Tax Officer inspected the dealer's shop and seized account books, leading to a penalty under section 15-A(1)(c) for deliberate concealment. The dealer contested, claiming the seized books were for a partner's separate business. The penalty was reduced on appeal but quashed in revision, prompting the Commissioner to challenge the decision. The revising authority found insufficient evidence to establish mens rea for concealment, emphasizing the burden of proof on the department. The court noted that a mere disagreement with the turnover submitted does not prove deliberate concealment. The judgment cited precedents emphasizing the quasi-criminal nature of penalty proceedings and the necessity of proving deliberate concealment. It highlighted the importance of mens rea in determining concealment and underscored the burden on the department to establish it. The court concluded that the dealer acted bona fide, and there was no evidence of deliberate concealment. The judgment upheld the revisional authority's decision, dismissing the revision and directing parties to bear their own costs.