9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (8) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the taxing authorities and it is the conclusion that the taxing authorities were competent under the scheme of this Act to impose the penalty to the tune of ten times of the tax which is payable. The contention advanced by learned counsel for he appellant that the penalty under section 464 could not be imposed without a conviction by a criminal court is not sustainable in law. Appeal dismissed. - - - - - Dated:- 1-8-1989 - Judge(s) : K. N. SAIKIA., G. L. OZA JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by G. L. OZA J. -This is an appeal on leave under article 136 of the Constitution. The appellant is a transporter and it is alleged that he brought goods into the limits of Delhi and the goods were seized within the Union Territory as it was alleged that they were brought in without the payment of terminal tax. A penalty of ten times the amount of the terminal tax was also demanded from the appellant and he was informed that if the terminal tax along with the penalty is not paid within four days, the goods will be sold at his risk. By a writ petition, the appellant challenged this demand before the High Court of Delhi and, by the impugned judgment, the Delhi High Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Commissioner to the terminal tax authority, came to the conclusion that, under section 464, it is the tax authority who has the jurisdiction to impose the penalty but, according to learned counsel, the residuary powers of the Commissioner under section 59 are only administrative powers and, according to him, the High Court was not right in placing reliance on that. The main emphasis by learned counsel was that the imposition of penalty as provided in section 464 where a wide discretion is given to impose penalty up to ten times the tax payable itself indicates that the functions of the authority who is expected to exercise the jurisdiction under section 464 are in the nature of judicial functions and, therefore, it could not have been left to the executive authority of the Commissioner or a delegate to whom the powers may have been delegated. According to learned counsel, the penalty was not imposed by the competent authority. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand: contended that the language used at the heading of the Chapter which starts with section 461 itself indicates that this Chapter deals with two types of matters : (i) Where offences are alleged to hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hi any goods liable to terminal tax without the payment of such tax shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both, and the court trying an offence under this section may, on such conviction, also confiscate the goods in respect of which the offence has been committed." Section 464 reads : "464. Penalty for evasion of terminal tax.-Where any goods imported into Delhi are liable to the payment of terminal tax, any person, who with the intention of evading payment of the tax introduces or attempts to introduce or causes or abets introduction of any such goods within the Union Territory of Delhi, upon which payment of terminal tax due on such introduction, has neither been made nor tendered, shall be punishable with fine which may extend to ten times the amount of such terminal tax. " It is significant that, in section 463, the language used is that "a person who brings the goods into the Union Territory of Delhi liable to terminal tax without the payment of tax shall on conviction be punishable." Whereas in section 464, the section talks of bringing the goods in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner either to exercise these powers himself or to delegate them. It is not in dispute that, in exercise of powers under section 59, the Municipal Commissioner had the authority and exercising the powers under section 491 of the Act by notification dated September 17, 1973, he delegated the functions under section 464 to the taxing authorities and it is the conclusion that the taxing authorities were competent under the scheme of this Act to impose the penalty to the tune of ten times of the tax which is payable. Section 59 of the Act reads: "59. Functions of the Commissioner.-Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the entire executive power for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act other than those pertaining to the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking and of any other Act for the time being in force which confers any power or imposes any duty on the Corporation, shall vest in the Commissioner who shall also (a) exercise all the powers and perform all the duties specifically conferred or imposed upon him by this Act or by any other law for the time being in force ; (b) prescribe the duties of, and exercise supervision and control over the acts and proceedi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
