2006 (11) TMI 552 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Review of a judgment passed by a learned single judge in M.P.No.1276 of 1989 regarding the validity of section 7(5) of the M.P.Sthaniya Kshetra Me Mal Ke Pravesh Par Kar Adhiniyam, 1976.
2. Consideration of the Supreme Court's decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bharat Heavy Electricals [1997] 106 STC 604; [1997] 7 SCC 1 regarding the discretion of the sales tax authority in imposing penalties.

Analysis:
1. The applicants (Revenue) filed an application under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking a review of the order dated April 7, 1998, passed by a learned single judge in M.P.No.1276 of 1989. The learned A.A.G. argued that the judgment of a division Bench of the court in Western Coalfields Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh had been reversed by the apex court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bharat Heavy Electricals. The Supreme Court's decision was not brought to the notice of the learned single judge, who proceeded based on the division Bench decision and ruled in favor of the respondent. The High Court noted that failure to cite a decision before the court cannot be a ground for seeking review. The Supreme Court in BHEL's case stated that the presumption regarding penalties under section 7(5) of the Adhiniyam is rebuttable, and the dealer must rebut it. The Court also highlighted that the sales tax authority has the discretion to impose a penalty less than the prescribed ten times the evasion amount based on the circumstances of each case. Therefore, the High Court found no justification for reviewing the impugned order and dismissed the application for review without costs.

2. The High Court emphasized that the failure to bring a decision to the notice of the court cannot be a valid ground for seeking a review. The Supreme Court's ruling in BHEL's case clarified that the presumption regarding penalties under section 7(5) of the Adhiniyam is rebuttable and must be rebutted by the dealer. Additionally, the Court acknowledged that the sales tax authority has the discretion to impose a penalty lower than the prescribed ten times the evasion amount based on the facts and circumstances of each case. As such, the High Court found no merit in reviewing the order and dismissed the application for review without imposing any costs.