9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (9) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m was assessed to sales tax for the period from 25th October, 1965, to 12th October, 1966. It had given a declaration in form XII-A in respect of tendu Patta purchased to the extent of Rs. 20,66,830. The other purchases by import amounted to Rs. 6,283, while goods purchased without declaration amounted to Rs. 1,72,540.52. The sales tax authorities found that the petitioner-firm had exported 85 per cent. of the produced goods, namely, manufactured bidis, outside the State. The petitioner-firm had been allowed to make purchases at a concessional rate of 1 per cent. on the declaration made by it that the goods would be used inside the State and that they were not meant for export. Under these circumstances, the sales tax authorities imposed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... following observations. It may be noted that one of the questions referred to the High Court was whether the Tribunal was right in holding that penalties under section 12(5) of the Act had been rightly levied and whether, in view of the serious dispute of liability, it cannot be said that there was sufficient cause for not applying for registration. With reference to the phrase used in section 12(5) of the Orissa Act, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed: "Under the Act penalty may be imposed for failure to register as a dealer: section 9(1) read with section 25(1)(a) of the Act. But the liability to pay penalty does not arise merely upon proof of default in registering as a dealer. An order imposing penalty for failure to carry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rding penalty for failure to register, penalty can only arise where the failure to register is without reasonable cause. However, if it be for a reasonable cause, then the question of imposing a penalty does not at all arise. It was for that reason that their Lordships of the Supreme Court made the observation that where a reasonable cause was established, there would be no case for imposition of a penalty. However, the case for imposition of a penalty under section 8(2) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, would stand on a slightly different footing than the question of imposition of a penalty either under the provisions of the Orissa Act or under section 15(5) of the Madhya Pradesh Act. We may observe that if the question in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under sub-section (1), is sold by him, subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be prescribed, to another registered dealer, for the purpose specified in that sub-section: Provided further that where such registered dealer subsequently purchasing the raw material as aforesaid, utilises it for any purpose other than the purpose specified in sub-section (1), he shall be liable to pay the penalty specified under sub-section (2)." The relevant thing to note is that this section provides for imposition of the proper sales tax which might not have been paid on account of certain circumstances. A dealer may obtain purchase of goods on concessional terms probably on the impression that he may not be required to export the goods or tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d been paid within time; while the balance of Rs. 50,000 was paid after about a year. Thus, according to the Board of Revenue, a loss of interest was caused to the Government inasmuch as there was late payment of the proper sales tax. In that view, the Board of Revenue thought it necessary to compensate the Government by awarding some penalty which might roughly be near about the loss of the actual interest that the Government could have earned if proper sales tax had been paid in due time. From this point of view, it cannot be urged on behalf of the petitioner-firm that the discretion had been exercised not on any of the judicial principles, nor can the discretion be said to be arbitrary or high-handed. In our opinion, that would be a perf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the ultimate view we take, we answer the question by stating that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty amounting to Rs. 5,000 in addition to the balance of proper sales tax of Rs. 71,376 was justified. We may at this stage clarify the position. What was imposed by way of penalty was the balance of proper sales tax. In this view of the matter, the amount of Rs. 71,376, although called a penalty, was only the balance of the proper sales tax payable by the petitioner-firm. In that view of the matter, penalty of Rs. 5,000, although categorised as extra penalty, was just ordinary penalty imposable under section 8(2) of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958. Accordingly, the case shall be sent back to the Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
