2002 (11) TMI 753 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Violation of rules regarding delivery note form 39-C, levy of penalty under section 28A(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a registered dealer in dry fruits and kirana items, faced a penalty notice of Rs.1,65,600 for discrepancies in the delivery note form 39-C. The respondent alleged that the form was not printed on white paper as required by Rule 23-B(1-B)(b) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, and it was purchased from an unauthorized source. The Court examined the relevant rules and found that the discrepancies were not substantial violations warranting such a hefty penalty. The amended rule 23-B mandates the delivery note to be in triplicate on white paper, but it does not explicitly require the dealer to print it themselves. The Court interpreted the rule in a reasonable manner, considering the practical implications and the absence of prohibition on purchasing the form. It concluded that the discrepancies were likely unintentional errors rather than willful violations, thus setting aside the penalty notice.

The Court emphasized that penalties under section 28A(4) should be imposed for blatant violations or willful disobedience, not for genuine mistakes. In this case, the petitioner's reply was deemed sufficient, and the discrepancies were seen as bona fide errors. The Court exercised its discretion to read down the rule and nullify the penalty based on the specific circumstances of the case. It highlighted that deterrence through penalties is necessary only for deliberate violations, not for inadvertent mistakes. Therefore, it deemed it appropriate to quash the penalty notice and subsequent order, stating that pursuing an appeal would be futile given the factual background.

In the final directive, the Court instructed the petitioner to adhere to the rules going forward and use the correct form 39-C as per the amended rule 23-B. The petition was allowed, the penalty notice and confirmation order were set aside, and each party was directed to bear their own costs. The Court's decision focused on the intent behind the rule violations, the proportionality of penalties, and the practical application of the legal provisions in the context of the petitioner's case.