2008 (I) OLR — 407
THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND B. N. MAHAPATRA, J.
South Eastern Coal Fields Limited...Petitioner
Versus
Sales Tax Officer and another...Opp. Parties
Original Jurisdiction Case No. 2395 of 1992
Decided on 7th February, 2008.
A show cause notice which is issued seeking a reply from the dealer before imposing penalty on him for breach of any statutory provision must be in unambiguous and clear language. It should not be worded in such a manner that one shall be required to derive a clear idea of the case which he has to answer. If there is anything in the mind of any authority issuing show cause notice the same should be translated in clear words and must find place in the notice so as to enable an affected person/dealer to know the exact allegations raised against him on the basis of which he will give his reply. A plain reading of show cause notice as quoted above, clearly shows that the show cause notice was issued alleging that the petitioner had purchased several articles worth Rs. 2,60,32,996.14 during the period from 1986-87 to 1988-89 on the strength of Central Declaration Forms which were not specified in the Registration Certificate of the petitioner and by that the petitioner contravened the provisions of the C.S.T.Act.
In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that without calling upon the dealer-petitioner to explain its stand on the question of commission of offence under Clause (d) of Section 10 of the C.S.T.Act, imposition of penalty under Section 10-A, holding the dealer-petitioner guilty of an offence under Clause (d) of Section 10 is not sustainable. (Paras - 6 to 14)
JUDGMENT
B. N. MAHAPATRA, J. — In this writ petition the petitioner challenges the revisional order dated 13.3.1992 passed by the Addl. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa (hereinafter called as the ‘revisional authority’) in Revision Case No. SA.517/91-92, confirming the order dated 30.10.1989 passed by the Sales Tax Officer (hereinafter called as ‘the S.T.O.), Sambalpur-III Circle, Jharsuguda, imposing penalty of Rs. 37,00,000/- under Section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘C.S.T.Act’).
2. In nutshell, the background facts which are relevant for the purpose of dealing with this writ petition are as follows :
The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Seepat Road, Bilaspur in the State of Madhya Pradesh and is a subsidiary of Coal India Ltd. It has an unit in Brajarajnagar in the district of Sambalpur (Orissa) and it is a Government of India undertaking. The business of the petitioner is to extract coal from the Mines both underground and open cast and to effect sale thereof. To carry on its business the petitioner registered itself both under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.S.T. Act’) and C.S.T.Act bearing Registration No. SA-III-848 and SA-IIIC 561 respectively.
The petitioner by its petition dated 30.9.1982 sought for an amendment of Registration Certificate for incorporating, Trucks, Dumpers, Tippers, Front and Leaders, Jeeps, Fork Clip Trucks, Tyres, Tubes and their spares of various description required for its mining operation. In this regard, the petitioner filed a petition dated 8.3.1982 vide Annexure-2 explaining to the registering authority the purpose for which those goods were required to be included in the Registration Certificate. Thereafter, the learned S.T.O. allowed the prayer for amendment of the Registration Certificate for inclusion of the aforemen¬tioned goods in the Registration Certificates.
Subsequently a notice under Section 10-A of the C.S.T.Act bearing No. 8662 dated 21.10.1989 vide Annexure-3, was issued to the petitioner asking it to show cause why penalty under Section 10-A of the C.S.T.Act shall not be imposed on it as it had pur¬chased several articles worth Rs. 2,60,32,996.14 during the period from 1986-87 to 1988-89 on the strength of Central Declaration forms, which were not specified in the Registration Certificate. Pursuant to the said notice the petitioner appeared before the S.T.O. on 30.10.1989 and produced the relevant re¬cords, documents and papers and books of accounts. Before the learned S.T.O. it was contended that the goods purchased were duly specified in the Registration Certificate and that the petitioner had not contravened any provisions of the C.S.T.Act. The petitioner also filed written submission bearing Letter No. LOCIP/STR/54/597 dated 30.10.1989 vide Annexure-4 explaining therein that all the articles amounting to Rs. 2,60,32,996.14 as stated in the show cause notice were completely covered under the C.S.T.Act. In the said letter the petitioner also stated the nature of use of the goods purchased under the strength of ‘C’ form.
The S.T.O. on 30.10.1989 passed the impugned order of penalty under Section 10-A of the C.S.T.Act levying the penalty of Rs. 37,00,000/- on the ground that the dealer after purchasing the goods for any of the purposes specified in Clause (b) or Clause (c) or Clause (d) of Sub-section (3) of Section 8 failed without reasonable excuse to make use of the goods for any such purpose and thereby committed the offence coming within the scope of Sub-section (d) of Section 10 of the C.S.T.Act.
3. Being aggrieved by the order dated 30.10.1989 passed by the S.T.O. under Section 10-A of the C.S.T.Act, the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 23(4) of the O.S.T.Act read with Rule 22 of the C.S.T.(Orissa) Rules, before the Commissioner of Sales Tax. In the said revision, the revisional authority by order dated 13.3.199
3.(1970) 25 STC 211 : Hindustan v. The State...4
1.(1965) 16 STC 259 : Indian v. Commissioner...4
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.