Madras High Court
Dharmapuri District Co-Operative ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 February, 1991
Equivalent citations: [1991]82STC296(MAD)
JUDGMENT Mishra, J.
1. The instant revision is directed against an order of imposition of penalty under section 10-A(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), for alleged violation of the provision of section 8(2) of the Act.
2. We, however, are not required in this case to traverse the whole case or dilate into the details of the facts and the contentions for the two findings recorded by the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal are enough, in our opinion, for granting the relief prayed for. The Tribunal has stated :
"On going through the registration records we find that the departmental authorities did not take note of the fact that the certificate of registration in new form had not been issued to the appellant."
3. It so happened that when the petitioner applied for the issuance of the certificate, a new form had already been prescribed. In ignorance of the new form, however, the departmental authorities issued the certificate in the old form. Later, when the defect was detected, necessary corrections were made. In that context, the Appellate Tribunal has said :
"The learned counsel vehemently argued that the omission to include packing materials in the certificate of registration is only an unintentional slip occurred which has also been rectified and the certificate of registration suitably amended by inclusion of packing materials. We have also considered this aspect and found that there is some force in the arguments of the learned counsel of their unintentional slip in having packing materials included in their certificate of registration."
4. Notwithstanding the above findings, however, the Tribunal has said :
"We are of the view and opinion that an amount equivalent to tax which would have been levied under sub-section (2) of section 8 may be levied as penalty under section 10-A(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act which we consider will meet the ends of justice."
5. This Court has held in more than one case that for imposition of penalty, it is necessary to find that the act or omission of the assessee was intentional and in a certain sense whether mens rea was present. The findings aforequoted clearly show that there was no intentional omission on the part of the petitioner inviting penalty under section 10-A(1) of the Act.
6. For the reason aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the respondent has committed an error in imposing the penalty. The levy of penalty is accordingly set aside. The revision, to the extent indicated above, is allowed. No costs.
7. Petition allowed.