1997 (8) TMI 475 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice in levying penalty.
2. Seizure of goods in the course of inter-State sale for penalty.
3. Constitutionality of section 28A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with the case of a goods vehicle found transporting stove burners without proper documents, leading to the imposition of a penalty. The petitioner challenged the penalty order on the grounds of violation of natural justice principles. The court noted that the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer had issued a show cause notice, but the driver declined to avail of the opportunity to explain the defects noticed. The court held that an opportunity was granted, and the petitioner cannot complain of a lack of natural justice. The challenge on this ground was rejected.

2. The petitioner argued that goods in the course of inter-State sale should not have been seized for penalty purposes. The court explained that section 28A of the Act aims to prevent tax evasion and empowers officers to levy penalties for non-compliance with document requirements. The court clarified that the power to prevent tax evasion is incidental to the power to levy tax, even before the actual sale takes place. The court distinguished this case from previous judgments and upheld the constitutionality of section 28A. The challenge on this issue was dismissed.

3. The constitutionality of section 28A of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act was challenged by the petitioner, contending that the provisions allowing penalty for failure to produce documents were ultra vires of the Constitution. The court analyzed the provisions of section 28A, emphasizing its role in preventing tax evasion. The court held that the machinery provided by section 28A is within the legislative competence of the State Legislature and does not suffer from unconstitutionality. The court referred to a previous Supreme Court decision but distinguished it from the present case. The challenge to the constitutionality of section 28A was rejected, and the writ petition was dismissed with costs.