Allahabad High Court
Commissioner Of Sales Tax vs Kashi Prasad Ram Chandra Lal on 31 July, 2000
Equivalent citations: [2001]122STC567(ALL)
Author: R.K. Agrawal
Bench: R.K. Agrawal
JUDGMENT R.K. Agrawal, J.
1. These six revisions filed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow, raises common question as to whether penalty under Section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 can be levied upon the assessee-opposite party on the purchase of Gari Gola from outside the State of U.P. against declaration form C.
2. The assessee-opposite party is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act and is engaged in the business of Kerana, etc. It is specifically registered under the Central Sales Tax Act, as a dealer for kerana, colour food, drugs, dry fruits, seeds, kattha, supari, campher and chemicals.
3. According to the contention of the assessee-opposite party it had been importing Gari Gola against form C as Gari ka Gola is generally treated as an item of Kerana. It is sold by the Kerana dealers. The assessing officer had been permitting the assessee-opposite party to purchase Gari Gola against form C for the last several years, but on account of some audit objection for the assessment years 1981-82 to 1985-86 the penalty proceedings under Section 10 of the Act has been initiated and by separate orders penalty have been imposed. However, the Tribunal had held that penalty under Section 10-A of the Act is not exigible in the facts and circumstances. In the instant case there was no intention on the part of the assessee-opposite party to give any false declaration form C while importing Gari Gola against him. It was found that the assessee has been importing Gari Gola under the bona fide belief that it is an item of Kerana, even though it is liable to tax as oil seed being declared goods.
4. It may be mentioned here that the word Kerana is a wide word and includes several items. Normally Gari Gola sold by the assessee has not been treated as oil seed by the consumer but as an item of Kerana. The findings which has been recorded by the Tribunal on the basis of appraisal of evidence and material on record are pure findings of fact. Section 10(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 provides of levy of penalty if any person being registered dealer falsely represents when purchasing any class of goods that goods of such class are covered by a certificate of registration, thus for levying penalty under Section 10(b) of the Act the dealer should falsely represent that the goods are covered by the certificate of registration. The word falsely implies deliberate act which has been done knowingly. In the present case the findings recorded by the Tribunal are that the assessee-opposite party had not deliberately given any false representation while purchasing goods. Thus, the penal provision under Section 10(b) of the Act was not at all attracted. The revisions lack merit and are dismissed.