2021 (12) TMI 789 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Levy of penalty under Section 10-A of the CST Act - case of the Department was that the Petitioner had purchased offset printing machine, camera and lens, computer and fax machine on the strength of the declaration in Form C although he was not entitled to make such purchases - HELD THAT - Although in the impugned orders of the STO and the Tribunal, the expression mens rea may not be used as such, it is present, perhaps not in so many words, in the various findings of the Tribunal as has been noticed herein before. In more than one place the Tribunal has found that the Petitioner had an unscrupulous intention in making a petition for issuance of C Forms so as to lead the officials to begin to believe that he was entitled to procuring goods on the strength of the registration certificate . In another place the Tribunal finds that the Petitioner in fact made a misrepresentation to the officials knowing fully well that he was not entitled to be issued with C Forms on the strength of the R.C. He is further said to have managed to obtain C Forms by such misguiding petition. The Court is inclined to agree with the learned A.S.C. that although in so many words it has not been stated that the Petitioner has mens rea, the findings in fact indicate that he did - Revision Petitions are dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Violation of Section 10(b) and 10(d) of the CST Act in purchasing goods, Misutilization of goods purchased on 'C' Forms, Application of penalty under Section 10-A of the CST Act, Requirement of mens rea for imposing penalty under Section 10-A.

Violation of Section 10(b) and 10(d) of the CST Act:
The case involved the Petitioner, who ran a Printing Press and purchased equipment on 'C' Forms, allegedly misrepresenting his entitlement. The STO found the purchases violated Sections 10(b) and 10(d) of the CST Act, leading to a penalty imposition. The ACST initially held the dealer had no guilty intention, but the Tribunal disagreed, emphasizing false representation and misuse of 'C' Forms for unauthorized purposes. The Tribunal concluded that the Petitioner's intentional misrepresentation warranted penalty under Section 10-A of the CST Act, attracting liability under Section 10(b) of the Act.

Misutilization of goods purchased on 'C' Forms:
The Tribunal found that the Petitioner misused the purchased goods for activities not authorized under the CST Act, such as printing newspapers and using machinery for job works. The Tribunal highlighted that goods bought on 'C' Forms should be used for resale or manufacturing, not for job works. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the STO's decision to penalize the Petitioner under Section 10(d) of the CST Act for misusing the purchased equipment, leading to the imposition of the penalty.

Application of penalty under Section 10-A of the CST Act:
The Tribunal's decision to apply penalty under Section 10-A of the CST Act was based on the deliberate misrepresentations and misuse of 'C' Forms by the Petitioner. The Tribunal noted the need for penalty imposition in lieu of prosecution, emphasizing the intentional actions of the Petitioner in obtaining 'C' Forms and misusing them for unauthorized activities. The Tribunal's findings supported the imposition of a penalty not exceeding one and a half times the tax due on the purchases, as allowed under Section 10-A of the Act.

Requirement of mens rea for imposing penalty under Section 10-A:
The issue of mens rea, or guilty intention, was raised concerning the imposition of the penalty under Section 10-A of the CST Act. The Petitioner argued that mens rea was essential for penalty imposition, citing a Supreme Court decision. However, the Department contended that deliberate suppressions and misrepresentations by the Petitioner fulfilled the requirements of Section 10-A. The Court agreed with the Department, noting that while mens rea was not explicitly stated, the findings indicated the Petitioner's intentional actions, justifying the penalty imposition. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Revision Petitions, upholding the penalty under Section 10-A.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment from the Orissa High Court highlights the key issues of violation of CST Act sections, misutilization of goods, application of penalty under Section 10-A, and the requirement of mens rea for penalty imposition. The Court's detailed examination and interpretation of the facts and legal provisions resulted in the dismissal of the Revision Petitions, affirming the penalty imposed on the Petitioner for deliberate misrepresentations and misuse of 'C' Forms.