1993 (11) TMI 213 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Imposition of penalty on the petitioner for delayed payment of tax.
- Dispute regarding the authority responsible for receiving tax payments.
- Interpretation of relevant provisions of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act and Rules.

Imposition of Penalty:
The petitioner, a registered dealer under Central and State Sales Tax Acts, faced an imposition of penalty for delayed payment of tax due to a miscrediting issue by the State Bank of India. The assessing authority passed an order imposing the penalty, which was challenged in a writ petition on the grounds that the miscrediting was not the petitioner's fault but that of the bank. The Court analyzed the situation and concluded that the assessing authority was not legally justified in imposing the penalty, as the petitioner had fulfilled the requirements of depositing the tax due within the prescribed time.

Dispute over Tax Payment Authority:
The dispute arose regarding the authority designated to receive tax payments from the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the State Bank of India, Sector 17, Chandigarh, was authorized to accept tax payments due to the State of Haryana, and therefore, the miscrediting issue did not make the petitioner liable for the penalty. On the other hand, the Additional Advocate-General of Haryana argued that the tax should have been deposited at Panchkula with the State Bank of Patiala. However, the Court held that since the amount was ultimately credited to the State of Haryana, the assessing authority was not justified in imposing the penalty.

Interpretation of Relevant Provisions:
The Court examined Section 25(1) and (3) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, which stipulates the manner of tax payment and submission of returns. It was noted that the petitioner had deposited the tax with the State Bank of India, Sector 17, Chandigarh, which was authorized to act as a Government Treasury for the State of Haryana. The Court emphasized that the provisions of the Act were complied with, and any breach of rules regarding depositing tax did not warrant the imposition of a penalty in this case. The judgment highlighted that the penalty was not justified as the delay in crediting the tax amount to the State of Haryana was not the fault of the petitioner.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the order imposing a penalty on the petitioner. The judgment emphasized that the petitioner had fulfilled the requirements of tax payment within the specified time, and any delay or miscrediting by the bank did not make the petitioner liable for the penalty.