1992 (5) TMI 181 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty on stone crushers at the check-post without following due process under the Haryana General Sales Tax Act.
2. Maintainability of the writ petition challenging the penalty imposed under section 51 of the Act.

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dealt with the imposition of a penalty on stone crushers at the check-post without following the provisions of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act. The petitioners, including a union of stone crushers and 11 individuals, were engaged in the business of stone crushing. The dispute arose when the Officer in-charge at the Sales Tax Check Barrier imposed a penalty of Rs. 20 per truck, despite the petitioners producing necessary bills and documents. The Court noted that the penalty was not in accordance with the Act and ordered its quashing.

Regarding the maintainability of the writ petition challenging the penalty, a preliminary objection was raised by the Deputy Advocate General of Haryana. The objection was based on the availability of an alternative remedy through an appeal under section 39 of the Act. However, the Court rejected this objection, emphasizing that the penalty imposed lacked a formal order specifying contravention or noncompliance with the Act. The Court highlighted the requirement of a quasi-judicial order supported by reasons before imposing a penalty, which could then be challenged through an appeal. As no such order was passed by the Assessing Authority at the check-post, the Court deemed the remedy of appeal ineffective in this case.

The judgment referenced a previous order in the case of Bharat Stone Crusher, Zirakpur, where a similar penalty was quashed by the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals). Despite this precedent, the authorities had continued to collect penalties without proper orders. The Court, therefore, allowed the writ petition, quashed the penalty of Rs. 20 per truck, and directed the respondents to refund the unlawfully charged penalties upon application by the petitioners within three months. Additionally, costs were imposed on the respondents. The judgment highlighted the importance of following due process and ensuring that penalties are imposed in accordance with the law.