2004 (4) TMI 565 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Levy of penalty under section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act for wrongly issuing form C in respect of purchases of garigola from outside State of U.P.
2. Interpretation of false representation under section 10(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act.
3. Applicability of penalty in cases of mistaken identity of goods for taxation purposes.

Analysis:
1. The revisions before the Allahabad High Court involved the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83 concerning the levy of penalty under section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act for incorrectly issuing form C for purchases of garigola from outside the State of U.P. The Tribunal confirmed the penalty up to its stage, based on the dealer's treatment of garigola as a different commodity from kirana and dry fruits, leading to unauthorized issuance of form C for such purchases.

2. The dealer, a registered dealer of kirana and dry fruits, argued that the penalty should not apply as there was no deliberate false representation under section 10(b) of the Act. The dealer relied on legal precedents, including Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Kashi Prasad Ram Chandra Lal, highlighting that the term "kirana" is broad and may include items like garigola, which consumers often perceive as kirana rather than oil seeds subject to taxation.

3. The High Court, referencing its previous judgment in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Kashi Prasad Ram Chandra Lal, emphasized that the dealer's belief in treating garigola as kirana, even if technically classified as oil seeds, was a genuine mistake rather than a deliberate false representation. The court concluded that the case did not warrant penalty under section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act, as the dealer did not make a false representation under section 10(b) while issuing form C for garigola purchases. Consequently, the court allowed both revisions, setting aside the penalty orders in favor of the dealer.