2009 (6) TMI 937 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Penalty order challenged - Held that - As according to the third respondent there is mens rea embedded in this case which attracted levy of penalty. So the revisional authority namely the third respondent considered the question raised by the petitioner with respect to the mens rea and came into a specific finding against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. W.P. dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the penalty order under Section 45A of the KGST Act.
2. Mens rea requirement for imposing penalty.
3. Adequacy of the records and accounts maintained by the assessee.
4. Validity of the orders in revision confirming the penalty.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Penalty Order under Section 45A of the KGST Act:
The petitioner, a public limited company engaged in the manufacture and export of spices, challenged the penalty order (Exhibit P2) issued under Section 45A of the KGST Act. The penalty was imposed due to discrepancies found in the sale of spices for export during the assessment year 1995-96. The initial penalty order was confirmed by the subsequent revision orders (Exhibits P4 and P6). The petitioner argued that the authorities did not establish mens rea to evade tax, which is essential for imposing a penalty under Section 45A.

2. Mens Rea Requirement for Imposing Penalty:
The petitioner contended that there was no mens rea to evade tax as the discrepancies were due to a presumption that dried chilies converted into oily resins for export still qualified for tax exemption. The petitioner produced all relevant records, including the personal account register, which contained all transaction details. The petitioner cited decisions in Kollanur Agencies v. Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) and P.D. Sudhi v. Intelligence Officer to support the argument that mens rea is necessary for imposing penalties under Section 45A. However, the court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Bajaj Electricals Ltd., which emphasized that mens rea is not required for civil penalties related to tax delinquencies.

3. Adequacy of the Records and Accounts Maintained by the Assessee:
The authorities found that the petitioner failed to maintain proper accounts and documents as required by law. The first respondent noted irregularities such as non-continuity of invoices, use of different invoice sets, and missing bill copies. The sales were not accounted for in the return filed, leading to a tax evasion of Rs. 5,47,400. Despite the petitioner's objections, no satisfactory explanation or supporting materials were provided to justify the discrepancies. The court found no fault with the first respondent's conclusion that the petitioner did not account for all transactions accurately.

4. Validity of the Orders in Revision Confirming the Penalty:
The court upheld the validity of the revision orders (Exhibits P4 and P6) confirming the penalty. The third respondent, in Exhibit P6, specifically found that the petitioner failed to maintain true and complete accounts, resulting in tax evasion. The court emphasized that the penalty under Section 45A could be imposed without proving mens rea, as the failure to comply with statutory obligations itself justified the penalty. The court concluded that the authorities had fully considered the issue of mens rea and found it embedded in the case, warranting the penalty.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the legality of the penalty order and the subsequent revision orders. The court held that the petitioner failed to maintain proper accounts and comply with statutory requirements, justifying the imposition of the penalty under Section 45A of the KGST Act. The court also clarified that mens rea is not a necessary element for imposing civil penalties related to tax delinquencies.

← Previous Next →