1992 (2) TMI 331 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Legality of the order passed by the Additional Commissioner of Sales Tax under section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act.
2. Whether mens rea is required to establish culpability under section 10-A.
3. Application of penalty under section 10-A for contraventions of clauses (b) and (d) of section 10 of the Central Act.
4. Distinction between offences under section 10(b) and section 10(d) of the Central Act.
5. Determination of penalty amount in light of mens rea and contraventions.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, challenged the order imposing a penalty of Rs. 2.5 lakhs for contraventions of section 10-A. The allegations included purchasing goods at concessional rates using form "C" declarations not covered in the registration certificate or not used for the specified purposes. The penalty was reduced to Rs. 43,474 by the revisional authority, citing contraventions in some items. The petitioner contested the imposition of penalty, arguing the absence of mens rea.

2. The requirement of mens rea in establishing culpability under section 10-A was debated. Mens rea, the blameworthy mental condition, plays a crucial role in determining penalty imposition. The Additional Commissioner's decision to impose a penalty without establishing mens rea was deemed unjustified. Mens rea is essential for offenses under section 10(b) and 10(d), as highlighted by the terms "falsely represents" and "without reasonable excuse" in the provisions.

3. Regarding the purchase and resale of mercury, the absence of mens rea led to the conclusion that penal provisions should not apply unless contumacious conduct or deliberate defiance of statutory provisions is proven. Mens rea is a dominant ingredient in determining penalty imposition for specific goods under section 10-A.

4. Distinctions between offenses under section 10(b) and 10(d) were clarified. The offense under section 10(b) involves falsely representing goods covered by the registration certificate during purchase, while section 10(d) pertains to using purchased goods for a purpose contrary to the declared purpose. The onus of proving mens rea was met by the Revenue through detailed factual analysis, justifying the penalty imposition for certain items.

5. The judgment maintained the penalty for items other than mercury, restricting it to Rs. 7,474. The decision balanced the absence of mens rea with contraventions under section 10(d), emphasizing the rationality of the penalty amount based on established legal principles. The judgment concluded by disposing of the writ application without costs, with agreement from both judges.