2009 (12) TMI 874 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Refund of the amount of penalty collected by the check-post authority directed - Held that - It is for the authorities to ascertain as to whether there was just or sufficient reason or cause as explained by the assessee or person as the case may be to levy the penalty and after considering the said sufficient cause, penalty can be levied. In view of the same, we find that the appellate authority has accepted the cause shown by the appellant herein as sufficient cause for annulling the levy of penalty and the said order being revised by the revisional authority only on the premise of the violation of section 28A(2)(d) of the Act would be contrary to the spirit and intention behind sub-section (4) of section 22A of the Act and hence, we answer questions of law in favour of the appellant herein and against the Revenue in the facts and circumstances of case only.

Issues:
1. Justification of penalty under section 28A(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 for an exempted unit.
2. Authority of a Checkpost Officer to levy penalty under section 28A(4) for minor technical errors.
3. Validity of initiating suo motu revisionary proceedings after an order setting aside a penalty.

Issue 1:
The appellant contested the penalty levied by the check-post authority under section 28A(4) of the Act, arguing that being a tax-exempted unit, there was no tax liability on the goods transported. The appellant claimed non-stopping at the check-post was due to the mistaken belief that the check-post had been abolished, and all required documents were provided upon interception. The appellate authority accepted the appellant's explanation as sufficient cause to annul the penalty. The High Court held that the revisional authority erred in confirming the penalty, emphasizing that the levy was solely based on non-stopping at the check-post, without any other violations. The court ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the revisional authority's decision was contrary to the Act's spirit and intention, and answered the question of law in favor of the appellant.

Issue 2:
The Government advocate argued that the penalty was justified under section 28A(2)(d) for violating mandatory provisions, regardless of tax evasion intentions. The revisional authority upheld the penalty, considering the violation of the Act's section. However, the High Court found that as the penalty was solely for non-stopping at the check-post, and the appellant provided a sufficient cause as required under section 28A(4), the revisional authority's decision was erroneous. The court emphasized that the establishment of mens rea was not necessary for penalty under fiscal statutes, but sufficient cause must be considered. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the revisional authority's decision was not justified.

Issue 3:
The appellant challenged the initiation of suo motu revisionary proceedings after the appellate authority set aside the penalty order. The revisional authority, after considering objections, concluded that the appellate order was prejudicial to revenue and reinstated the penalty. The High Court noted that the sole ground for penalty was non-stopping at the check-post, which the appellate authority found to have a sufficient cause for annulment. The court held that the revisional authority's decision to confirm the penalty was unjustified, as the appellant's explanation was accepted as sufficient cause. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the revisional authority's order and restoring the appellate authority's decision.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the appeal, answering the substantial questions of law in favor of the appellant. The court set aside the revisional authority's order and restored the appellate authority's decision, emphasizing the importance of considering sufficient cause before levying penalties under the Act.

← Previous Next →