1986 (11) TMI 383 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Penalty imposition for importing goods without Form No. 31.
2. Validity of penalty under Section 15A(1)(o) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act.
3. Interpretation of Section 28-A of the Act.
4. Relevance of factors in determining penalty imposition.
5. The impact of the absence of a check-post on penalty imposition.
6. Consideration of intention to conceal goods in penalty imposition.

Analysis:

1. The case involved the imposition of a penalty on the assessee for importing mobil oil and cutting oil without Form No. 31, despite having received the forms upon request. The Sales Tax Officer imposed a penalty under Section 15A(1)(o) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, which was later knocked off by the first appellate authority citing a court decision that deemed the provision ultra vires. The Commissioner of Sales Tax filed a revision against this decision, leading to the current judgment.

2. The judgment delves into the interpretation of Section 15A(1)(o) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, which allows for penalties in cases of contravention of Section 28-A. The Tribunal had dismissed the appeal based on a previous court decision declaring Section 28-A as invalid. However, the High Court found that the Tribunal erred in law by considering Section 28-A as invalid, as the relevant notification was the subject of challenge in the previous case, not the section itself. Therefore, the penalty under Section 15A(1)(o) was deemed valid.

3. Section 28-A of the Act, as amended in 1979, outlines the requirements for importing goods into the state. The judgment highlights the necessity of complying with the provisions of this section, emphasizing the importance of obtaining a declaration in Form No. 31 for imported goods. Failure to adhere to these requirements can attract penalties under Section 15A(1)(o).

4. The judgment addresses the relevance of various factors in determining penalty imposition. The Tribunal's considerations, such as the absence of a check-post, entry in account books, and lack of mens rea, were deemed irrelevant by the High Court. The focus was on the non-compliance with Section 28-A regarding the import of goods without the required declaration, rather than intentions or other circumstances.

5. The absence of a check-post was found to be insignificant in the penalty imposition decision since neither party submitted the required declaration in Form No. 31 to the assessing authority as mandated by Section 28-A. The High Court emphasized that the key factor was the non-compliance with the statutory requirement, regardless of other external factors.

6. The judgment also discusses the Tribunal's finding regarding the absence of intention to conceal goods based on entries in account books. The High Court clarified that such findings, if based on irrelevant considerations, are not binding. The absence of intent to conceal does not absolve the dealer from penalties for non-compliance with Section 28-A, as the focus is on adherence to statutory provisions rather than intent.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the revision, setting aside the Tribunal's decision and restoring the penalty imposed by the Sales Tax Officer under Section 15A(1)(o) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act. The judgment underscores the importance of statutory compliance and the limited relevance of extraneous factors in penalty imposition for non-compliance with tax laws.