SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1976 Supreme(Raj) 266

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
A.P.Sen, P.D.Kudal, JJ.
M/s. Man Industrial Corporation Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Ors. - Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 226 of 1968.
Decided On : 20-07-1976

NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED UNDER THE STATE ACT FOR DELAY IN SUBMISSION OF RETURNS AND PAYMENT OF TAX UNDER THE CENTRAL SALES TAX ACT.

Headnote:

CENTRAL SALES TAX ACT, 1956 - SECTION 9(2) - PENALTY - LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER STATE ACT FOR DELAY IN SUBMISSION OF RETURNS AND PAYMENT OF TAX UNDER CENTRAL ACT - NOT PERMISSIBLE - SECTION 9(2) OF THE CENTRAL SALES TAX ACT, 1956 ADOPTS THE MACHINERY OF THE STATE ACTS ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ASSESSMENT AND RECOVERY OF TAX AND PENALTIES DUE UNDER THE CENTRAL SALES TAX ACT - THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIVE PROVISION FOR LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER THE CENTRAL ACT - HENCE, NO PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED WITH THE AID OF THE PROVISIONS FOR LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER THE STATE ACTS.

Fact of the Case:

THE PETITIONER, A DEALER REGISTERED UNDER THE CENTRAL SALES TAX ACT, 1955, WAS IMPOSED A PENALTY UNDER SECTION 16(1)(B) AND (C) OF THE RAJASTHAN SALES TAX ACT, 1954, FOR DELAY IN SUBMISSION OF RETURNS AND PAYMENT OF TAX UNDER THE CENTRAL SALES TAX ACT.

Finding of the Court:

THE COURT HELD THAT THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY BY THE COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER UNDER SECTION 16(1)(B) AND (C) OF THE RAJASTHAN SALES TAX ACT, 1954 WAS WHOLLY WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND COULD NOT BE SUPPORTED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 9(2) OF THE CENTRAL SALES TAX ACT 1966.

Issues: WHETHER ANY PENALTY COULD BE LEVIED UNDER SECTION 16(1)(B) AND (C) OF THE RAJASTHAN SALTS TAX ACT EITHER FOR DELAY IN SUBMISSION OF RETURNS UNDER THE CENTRAL SALES TAX ACT OR FOR ANY DELAY IN PAYMENT OF TAX UNDER THAT ACT.

Ratio Decidendi: SECTION 9(2) OF THE CENTRAL SALES TAX ACT, 1956 ADOPTS THE MACHINERY OF THE STATE ACTS ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ASSESSMENT AND RECOVERY OF TAX AND PENALTIES DUE UNDER THE CENTRAL SALES TAX ACT - THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIVE PROVISION FOR LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER THE CENTRAL ACT - HENCE, NO PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED WITH THE AID OF THE PROVISIONS FOR LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER THE STATE ACTS.

Final Decision: THE COURT QUASHED THE ORDER OF IMPOSITION OF PENALTY BY THE COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER, CIRCLE 'B' JAIPUR CITY DATED 12.2.1968.

JUDGMENT

1. - This writ petition, filed by M/s Man Industrial Corporation Limited. Jaipur, which is the dealer registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1955, is directed against the order of the Commercial Taxes Officer Circle 'B', Jaipur City dated February 12, 1968 imposing penalty of Rs. 835/- under Section 16(1)(b) and Rs. 40,000/- under Section 16(1)(c) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. The penalty has been imposed due to delay in submission of its returns under the Central Sales Tax Act for the quarters ending 31st March, 1965 and for the delay in payment of tax under that Act.

2. The short question involved in the petition is whether any penalty could be levied under Section 16(1)(b) and (c) of the Rajasthan Salts Tax Act either for delay in submission of returns under (he Central Sales Tax Act or for any delay ID payment of tax under that Act.

3. The decision turns on a proper construction of Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, which enacts:-

"Subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, the authorities for the time being empowered to assess, reassess, collect and enforce payment of any tax under the general sales tax law of the appropriate State shall, on behalf of the Government of India, assess, re-assess, collect and enforce payment of tax, including any penalty, payable by a dealer under this Act as if the tax or penalty payable under the general sales tax law of the State, and for this purpose they may exercise all or any of the powers they nave under the general sales tax law of the State, and the provisions of such law, including provisions relating to returns, provisional assessment, advance payment of tax, registration of the transferee of any business, imposition of the tax liability of a person carrying on business on the transferee of or successor to, such business, transfer of liability of any firm or Hindu undivided family to pay tax in the event of the dissolution of such firm or petition of such family, recovery of tax from third parties, appeals, reviews, revision, refer ness, refunds, rebates, penalties, compounding of offences, and treatment of documents furnished by a dealer as confidential, shall apply accordingly:

Provided that if an any State or part thereof there is no genera sales tax law in force, the Central Government may by issue made in this behalf, make necessary provision for all or any of the matters specified in this sub-section."
The Act contains no substantive provision for levy of penalty but only adopts the machinery of the State Acts for the purposes on assessment and recovery on tax and penalties.

4. There was a sharp conflict of opinion between the different High Courts as to the purport and effect of Section 9(2) of the Act. While the High Courts of Madhya Pradesh, Punjab and Haryana and Mysore were of the view that the provisions contained in the State Acts were but only a machinery for the assessment and collector of taxes due under the Central Sales Tax Act and, therefore, for breach of any provision of that Act, penalty could be levied under the State Acts, a view to the contrary was taken by the High Courts of Madras, Calcutta, Mysore and Orissa. These High Courts were of the view tint in the thence of a substantive provision for the levy of a penalty under the Central Act, no penalty could be imposed with the aid of the provisions for levy of penalty under the State Acts. The conflict has, now, been set at rest by their Lordships in M/s. Khemka and Co. v. State of Maharashtra, (S.C.) 1975 (35) STC 571 (AC) , Their Lordships have reiterated the same view in a latter case namely, Manganese Ore (I) Ltd. v. Regional Asst. Commr. (S.C.), 1976 (37) STC 514 . In Khemka and Co. v. State of Maharashtra 1975 (35) STC 571 (AC) , Ravi C.J., in delivering the judgment of the majority observed that "penalty is not merely sanction, It is not merely adjunct to assessment. It is not merely consequential to assessment. It is not merely machin





Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top