1979 (12) TMI 136 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 for late filing of returns.
2. Challenge to the imposition of penalty based on the retrospective amendment of section 17 of the Act.
3. Constitutionality of the retrospective amendment under Article 20(1) of the Constitution.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in business, filed quarterly returns late for the period from April 1967 to March 1968. Subsequently, an amendment to section 17 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 was made, allowing for the imposition of penalties for late filing. The Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax imposed a penalty on the petitioner based on this amendment. The petitioner challenged this penalty through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, arguing that the retrospective amendment was ultra vires Article 20(1) of the Constitution.

The central issue revolved around whether the retrospective amendment to section 17 of the Act, allowing for the imposition of penalties for late filing, violated Article 20(1) of the Constitution. Article 20(1) prohibits conviction of any offence except for a violation of a law in force at the time of the act charged as an offence and limits the penalty to what was prescribed under the law at that time. The Court analyzed the meaning of "offence" and "penalty" within the context of the Constitution and relevant legal definitions to determine the applicability of Article 20(1) to fiscal laws.

The Court referred to previous judgments, including one by the Supreme Court, to establish that the imposition of penalties under fiscal laws is akin to the imposition of additional taxes rather than punishment for criminal offences. The Court highlighted that penalties under fiscal laws are imposed for dishonesty and contumacious conduct, serving as a form of additional tax rather than punishment for an offence. The Court emphasized that Article 20(1) pertains to criminal offences and convictions, not penalties under fiscal laws, and cited various legal precedents supporting this interpretation.

Furthermore, the Court addressed arguments based on observations from a Division Bench of the same Court, clarifying that such observations did not alter the established interpretation regarding the applicability of Article 20(1) to fiscal laws. Ultimately, the Court concluded that Article 20(1) of the Constitution does not apply to provisions allowing for the imposition of penalties under fiscal laws. Therefore, the challenge to the retrospective amendment of section 17 of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958, based on Article 20(1), was deemed untenable, and the petition was dismissed.