9911796707
TMI Blog1965 (9) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eferred to as the "Act" for his inter-State purchases of the provisions, patent goods, medicine, tobacco, medicated wines and denatured spirits, cigars and cigarettes. In respect of those goods the Sales Tax Authorities had issued the petitioners during the year 1961-62, the necessary "C" Forms. It appears that the petitioner had used some of those "C" Forms for purchasing in the course of inter-State trade goods not covered by his certificate of registration. Those goods are petromaxes, tapes, toilets, battery cells, glassware, essences, etc. The Commercial Tax Officer, Mangalore, on examination of the accounts of the petitioner came to the conclusion that the petitioner had falsely represented to his sellers while purchaseing those goods that they were covered by his certificate of registration. Therefore, he proceeded against him under section 10-A of the Act and called upon him to show clause why penalty should not be imposed on him as provided by that section. In response to that show cause notice, the petitioner represented as follows: "They (partners of the petitioner-firm) did not represent when purchasing goods that the said goods were covered by their certificate of regis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er section 10A of the Act. Sri Babu Rao is a manufacturer of soap. In his application for certificate of registration, under section 8 of the Act, he had included the following goods: (1) Coconut oil, (2) perfumes, (3) silicate, (4) caustic soda, (5) nails, (6) colours, (7) strappings, (8) papers and (9) rosin. In addition to these goods, during the assessment year 1960-61, he purchased two consignments of maroti oil worth Rs. 4,049.20 by issuing 'C' Form. In the year 1961-62, he purchased maroti oil and groundnut oil of the value of Rs. 22,803.85. On the ground that by purchasing maroti oil and groundnut oil during the relevant assessment years the petitioner had committed offences under section 10(b) of the Act, the Commercial Tax Officer proceeded to levy on him penalty under section 10-A of the Act. It appears to have been represented before the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal on behalf of Sri Babu Rao that he had purchased groundnut and maroti oil by oversight under the belief that they were also included in his certificate of registration. The Tribunal rejected that contention as having no merit. Section 10(b) of the Act says: "If any person, being a registered dealer, falsely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rds "falsely represented" in section 10(b) does not mean anything more than saying that the dealer concerned had made untrue representations. In support of this contention of his, he invited our attention to the decision in Pearl Assurance Company Ltd. v. Bromley49 T.L.R. 446. On behalf of the assessees, it was contended that the rule laid down in that decision is inapplicable to cases like the present one, where the petitioners are dealt with under a penal provision. Section 10(b) provides for imprisonment. Hence before a person can be held guilty under that provision a guilty intention must be established. The contention was that the expression "falsely represents" should be held to apply only to representations which are not only untrue but made with a deliberate purpose. A mere wrong statement or an untrue statement does not come within the scope of those words. In support of this contention our attention was invited to paragraph 508 of Halsbury's Laws of England, Third Edition, Volume 10. The passage in question reads: "A statutory crime may or may not contain an express definition of the necessary state of mind. A statute may require a specific intention, malice, knowledg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion certificate with the knowledge that they were not so covered. Where there was no finding that the representations made by the petitioner were false, namely that the 'C' Form declarations were issued without the belief that the goods purchased were covered by the registration certificate, the imposition of penalty under section 10-A would be illegal. The Court further held that mens rea is an essential ingredient for the commission of an offence under section 10(b)." In support of their contention, the petitioners also relied on the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in S. R. Kalani Co. v. C. L. Sharma and Another[1965] 16 S.T.C. 756. Both on principle and on authority, we think that the interpretation sought to be placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the expression "falsely represents" in section 10(b) of the Act, appears to be correct. But then, we have to see what exactly are the facts found in each of these cases. As mentioned earlier, the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal had come to the conclusion in the case of the petitioner in S. T. R. P. No. 15 of 1965 that the representations made by him in the 'C' Forms given by him to his sellers outside th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir explanation. Hence it is not necessary to consider whether ignorance of law can be considered as a valid excuse. The fact that they were making similar representations in the past is not a relevant circumstance. Another contention advanced by Mr. Krishna Murthy was that before imposing penalty under section 10-A, the authorities under the Act should have first come to the conclusion that the sales in question were exigible to tax under the Sales Tax laws prevailing in the State from which those goods were purchased. No such contention appears to have been taken before the authorities below. All the authorities have proceeded on the basis that those sales were exigible to tax in the States from where they were purchased. The contention of Mr. Krishna Murthy raises a mixed question of law and fact. Therefore, he cannot be permitted to take that contention for the first time in this Court. It was next urged by Mr. Krishna Murthy that in levying penalty, the Commercial Tax Officer had erroneously taken into consideration the petitioner's purchases of tinned tea and confectionery. This contention again does not appear to have been taken before the authorities below. From the mater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
