2010 (11) TMI 865 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Proposal to impose penalty under section 10A(i) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 challenged Held that - it cannot be said that even at the time of initiating the proceedings, the respondent will have to specify about the said aspect. Therefore, establishment of mens rea, being a question of fact, this court cannot go into the same, except by directing the respondent to apply the ratio laid down by the Full Bench of this court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Nu-tread Tyres 2006 148 STC 256 (Mad) FB , while exercising its power under section 10(a) of the Act. It cannot be said that even at the time of initiating the proceedings, the respondent will have to specify about the said aspect. Therefore, establishment of mens rea, being a question of fact, this court cannot go into the same, except by directing the respondent to apply the ratio laid down by the Full Bench of this court in State of Tamil Nadu v. Nu-tread Tyres 2006 (7) TMI 578 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , while exercising its power under section 10(a) of the Act.Thus the writ petitions, as filed, are pre-mature at this stage.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of notice proposing penalty under section 10A(i) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a 100% export-oriented unit manufacturing and exporting cotton knitted fabrics, sought to quash a notice proposing a penalty under section 10A(i) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The notice was issued by the respondent based on the petitioner's inter-State purchases of dyes and chemicals, which were alleged to be not covered under the form B certificate of registration. The petitioner contended that all purchases were duly recorded and covered under the form B certificate, which included dyes and chemicals. The petitioner argued for protection under section 5(1) and (3) of the Act, asserting that there was no mens rea on their part. The respondent, however, claimed that the writ petitions were premature, as the issues raised should be decided by the authority, emphasizing the need to establish mens rea for imposing the penalty under section 10A(i).

The court acknowledged that the impugned orders were show-cause notices proposing penalty under section 10A(i) of the Act. It was noted that the determination of mens rea is a factual matter to be decided by the respondent based on the evidence presented. The court highlighted the necessity for a positive finding of mens rea by the respondent before imposing a penalty. While the court could not delve into establishing mens rea at the initiation stage, it directed the respondent to consider the Full Bench judgment in a similar case. The court emphasized that the writ petitions were premature, allowing the petitioner to present all contentions to the respondent within a specified timeframe for further consideration. Ultimately, the court disposed of the writ petitions without costs, granting liberty to the petitioner to raise all contentions before the respondent, including the application of relevant legal precedents.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issue of quashing a notice proposing a penalty under the Central Sales Tax Act, emphasizing the importance of establishing mens rea and providing the petitioner with the opportunity to present all contentions to the authority for consideration. The court highlighted the need for factual determination by the respondent and directed adherence to legal precedents in similar cases for decision-making.