2024 (1) TMI 1115 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Imposition of penalty u/s 10(b) r.w.s 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 - unauthorized use of Form C - bona fide belief - existence of mens rea or not - burden to prove on Revenue - HELD THAT - In the present case, purchases of valves, regulator, PP caps, aluminum seal, etc. are not mentioned in the registration certificate and use of Form C could not be demonstrated by the revisionist that the same are covered under the word container was under bonafide belief or under mistake of fact as on remand, notice was issued, but the revisionist failed to bring on record any cogent materials to justify the bonafide belief and therefore, a finding of fact was recorded by the assessing authority, which was not challenged by the revisionist, either in the first appeal or in second appeal. Only legal submission on mens rea was raised. Even otherwise, the word container mentioned in registration certificate cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be connected with the items purchased by the revisionist, i.e., valves, regulator, PP caps, Aluminum Seal, etc. The impugned judgements orders passed by Commercial Tax Tribunal in these revisions do not require any interference by this Court as there is no infirmity in the same. Both the revisions are dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Consideration of mens rea for imposing penalty under Section 10(b) read with Section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act.
2. Misconstruction of the ratio of a previous judgment and application of the law laid down by the Apex Court.
3. Overlooking the plea that no false representation was made when importing goods.
4. Consideration of the bona fide contention regarding the authorization to purchase goods against Form C.

Summary:

Issue 1: Mens Rea for Imposing Penalty
The court examined whether the Tribunal committed a manifest error of law by not considering the concept of mens rea as a condition precedent for imposing a penalty under Section 10(b) read with Section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act. The court found that the revisionist failed to bring on record any material to justify the items in question as covered under the word "container" and thus did not demonstrate a bona fide belief or mistake of fact. The court upheld the penalty as the revisionist could not establish the absence of mens rea.

Issue 2: Misconstruction of Previous Judgment
The revisionist argued that the Tribunal misconstrued the ratio of the judgment dated 20.10.2011 in TTR No. 254 of 2011 and failed to apply the law laid down by the Apex Court in Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Sanjiv Fabrics. The court noted that the matter had been remanded with specific directions to consider the element of mens rea, but the revisionist failed to establish any bona fide belief or mistake of fact in subsequent proceedings.

Issue 3: False Representation in Importing Goods
The revisionist contended that it did not falsely represent itself when importing goods. The court found that the revisionist had utilized Form C to purchase items not listed in the registration certificate, such as valves, regulators, PP caps, and aluminum seals, which could not be connected to the word "container" by any stretch of imagination. Thus, the court upheld the penalty for misuse of Form C.

Issue 4: Bona Fide Contention Regarding Authorization
The revisionist argued that it had a bona fide belief that the goods in question were covered under the word "container" as no objection was raised by the revenue in previous years. The court found that penalties had been imposed for previous years as well, indicating that the revisionist had been utilizing Form C for items not authorized in the registration certificate. The court concluded that the revisionist failed to demonstrate any bona fide belief or mistake of fact.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed both revisions, stating that there was no infirmity in the impugned judgments and orders passed by the Commercial Tax Tribunal. The questions of law were answered against the assessee and in favor of the revenue.