9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (3) TMI 576X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... formers instead of in manufacturing the same. Consequently the penalty of Rs. 46,000 and Rs. 34,000 were imposed in the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 respectively. 4.. The appeals against this order were filed before the Deputy Commissioner, Trade Tax, which had been rejected. Feeling aggrieved, second appeals were filed before the Trade Tax Tribunal. The Tribunal also dismissed the appeals. Feeling aggrieved these revisions have been preferred. Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length. 5.. The first question for determination is whether the revisionist used the raw material obtained on the basis of form 3-B against the provisions of section 4-B and against the condition of recognition certificate. The relevant provisions of section 4-B is reproduced as follows: "Section 4-B: Special relief to certain manufacturers.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 3, 3-A, 3-AAAA and 3-D,- (a) Where any goods liable to tax under sub-section (1) of section 3-D are purchased by a dealer who is liable to tax on the turnover of first purchases, under that sub-section or where any goods are purchased by any dealer in circumstances in which such a dealer is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertificate has been granted under sub-section (2) has used the goods, after their purchase after payment of the tax at concessional rate under this section or, as the case may be, without payment of the tax, for a purpose other than that for which the recognition certificate was granted or has otherwise disposed of the said goods, such dealer shall be liable to pay as penalty such amount as the assessing authority may fix(a) not less than the difference between the amount of the tax on the sale or purchase of such goods, payable under any provision of this Act and the amount of the tax payable at concessional rate under this section, where the goods are purchased after paying the tax at concessional rate; and (b) not less than the amount of tax payable under section 3, section 3-A, section 3-AA, or section 3-D, as the case may be, where the goods are purchased without payment of the tax, but not exceeding three times the amount of such difference or of the tax, as the case may be." 6.. Rule 25-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Rules provides that an application for recognition shall be moved in form No. XVIII. It further provides that if the Sales Tax Officer is satisfied that the part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epair of transformers have not been included in the list of notified goods. There is no justification to add the words "spare parts" also in the list of notified goods. Instead of using the raw materials purchased at concessional rates acquired at the strength of recognition certificates were admittedly used in the manufacture of component parts which were used in repair of transformers and not in the manufacture of transformers. The use of raw materials for the purpose other than for manufacture of notified goods would attract penalty provided under section 4-B of the Act. 10.. The argument that the revisionist has not violated the conditions of recognition certificate is also not tenable. The condition No. 3 of the form No. XIX of the Trade Tax Rules clearly provides that the goods purchased on the basis of recognition certificate could be used only for the manufacture of notified goods. The condition No. 3 in the copy of the recognition certificate appears to be illegible. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that according to the recognition certificate issued to the revisionist he could utilise the raw material for the manufacture of the goods for sale. According to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of the honourable Supreme Court with reference to section 25(2) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act referred to above could not be made applicable in regard to penalty envisaged under section 15A(1)(g) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, which provide for penalty. The learned counsel for the applicant referred to the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. [1970] 25 STC 211 (SC); AIR 1970 SC 253. In view of the observation of Division Bench in the case of Kishori Lal Rakesh Kumar, Mandi [1985] 59 STC 323 (All.); 1985 UPTC 211, the applicant cannot get any help from the observation made by the honourable Supreme Court in the abovenoted case. 14.. In the case of R.S. Joshi, Sales Tax Officer, Gujarat v. Ajit Mills Ltd. [1977] 40 STC 497 (SC); 1979 UPTC 171, following observation was made: "The classical view that no mens rea, no crime has long ago been eroded and several laws in India and abroad, especially regarding economic crimes and departmental penalties, have created severe punishments even where the offences have been defined to exclude mens rea. Therefore, the contention that section 37(1) fastens a heavy liability regardless of fault has no force in depriving the forfeiture of the character ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
