TMI Blog1973 (3) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rkhanis, Senior Advocate (O.P. Rana, Advocate, with him), for the appellant. D.P. Singh, Senior Advocate (S.C. Agrawal, V.J. Francis and R.P. Singh, Advocates, with him), for the respondent. -------------------------------------------------- The judgment of the Allahabad High Court consisting of SATISH CHANDRA and R.L. GULATI, JJ., in Dyer Meakin Breweries Ltd. v. The Uttar Pradesh Government (Sales Tax References Nos. 15 and 16 of 1968), dated January 1, 1970, runs as follows: The judgment of the court was delivered by SATISH CHANDRA, J. -M/s. Dyer Meakin Breweries Ltd., the assessee, carries on the business of manufacture and sale of wines, beer and fruit juices, etc. They manufacture it at their factory situate at Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad. They also conduct their business at their office situate at Lucknow. The assessee, it appears, applied for and obtained registration certificate under the Central Sales Tax Act of 1956 both from the Sales Tax Officer, Ghaziabad, as well as, Lucknow. In the application for the registration certificate made to the Sales Tax Officer, Ghaziabad, the assessee mentioned 47 classes of goods to be included in the certificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... what articles had been included in form 'B'. It appears that on the application of the assessee, the Sales Tax Officer, Ghaziabad, had on 18th January, 1960, amended the registration certificate form by including in it some of the class of goods which had not been previously included by him. The assessee's objection also pleaded that the subsequent amendment of the registration certificate was also a. circumstance calling for condonation of the default. The Sales Tax Officer, Ghaziabad, on 7th June, 1961, passed an order disbelieving the assessee's explanation and imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,000 for the year 1958-59 and a penalty in a sum of Rs. 23,000 for the year 1959-60. The assessee filed appeals. The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) on 31st March, 1964, allowed the appeals in part. It confirmed the finding but reduced the penalty to a sum of Rs. 750 for the year 1958-59 and Rs. 17,000 for the year 1959-60. Aggrieved, the assessee went up in revision. The revision relating to the year 1958-59 was dismissed while the revision relating to the year 1959-60 was partly allowed, the amount of penalty being reduced by Rs. 2,000; in other respect the findings were upheld. Aggri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is Act in the same manner as the tax on the sale or purchase of goods under the general sales tax law of the State is assessed, paid and collected; and for this purpose they may exercise all or any of the powers they have under the general sales tax law of the State; and the provisions of such law, including provisions relating to returns, appeals, reviews, revisions, references, penalties and compounding of offences, shall apply accordingly: Provided that if in any State or part thereof there is no general sales tax law in force, the Central Government may, by rules made in this behalf, make necessary provision for all or any of the matters specified in this sub-section, and such rules may provide that a breach of any rule shall be punishable with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees; and where the offence is a continuing offence, with a daily fine which may extend to fifty rupees for every day during which the offence continues." Under section 10-A, the authority who granted to the assessee registration certificate or is competent to grant it, has been empowered to impose penalty. The Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, relate to the matter of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... register the assessee in respect of the principal place of business would be the Sales Tax Officer, Lucknow; so the Sales Tax Officer, Lucknow, would be the notified authority within the meaning of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, and so also within the meaning of section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act. Section 10-A authorises the authority who granted the assessee the registration certificate as also who is competent to grant to him certificate of registration, as the case may be, to take penalty proceedings in relation to offences under clauses (b), (c) and (d) of section 10. Clauses (b) and (d) relate to the registered dealers. Clause (c) of section 10 deals with an unregistered dealer who falsely represents when purchasing goods that he is a registered dealer. In our opinion, section 10-A when it empowers the authority who granted the certificate, seems to refer to the offences under clauses (b) and (d) of section 10; whereas for offences under clause (c) of section 10, it empowers the authority competent to grant to him the certificate of registration. It is thus clear that in the case of a particular assessee, only one authority has been em ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... U.P. Sales Tax Act defines a "Sales Tax Officer" to mean "a Sales Tax Officer of a circle appointed by the State Government to perform the duties and exercise the powers of an assessing authority in such circle....." Thus the Sales Tax Officer of a circle is the assessing authority for that circle. Rule 6 confers power of assessment. Under clause (a) thereto, the Sales Tax Officer is the assessing authority in respect of the dealers carrying on business within the limits of his jurisdiction. Clause (b) then states: "if a dealer carries on business within the limits of jurisdiction of more than one Sales Tax Officer, the Sales Tax Officer within whose jurisdiction the principal place of business is situated shall be the assessing authority in respect of such dealer". In the present case, the assessee carried on business at Ghaziabad and Lucknow within this State. The principal place of business with effect from 28th March, 1960, was at Lucknow. So with effect from that date, the Sales Tax Officer, Lucknow, would be the assessing authority under the U.P. Sales Tax Act. That being so, in view of section 9(3), the Sales Tax Officer, Lucknow, would be entitled to assess, collect and en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 31, 1960, requiring it to show cause why it should not be prosecuted under section 10(b) of the Act. Thereupon, the assessee submitted an application offering to compound the offence for a sum of Rs. 7,000. That offer was not accepted. Subsequently, on January 23, 1961, the Sales Tax Officer again called upon the assessee to show cause why penalty should not be imposed on it under section 10-A. After examining the representation made by the assessee, the Sales Tax Officer imposed on the assessee a penalty of Rs. 1,000 in respect of the unlawful purchases made by it during the assessment year 1958-59, and a sum of Rs. 23,000 in respect of the unlawful purchases made by it during the assessment year 1959-60. On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner (judicial) reduced the penalty in respect of the assessment year 1958-59 to Rs. 750 and in respect of the assessment year 1959-60 to Rs. 17,000. Thereafter, the assessee took up the matter in revision. The revisional authority dismissed the assessee's appeal in respect of the assessment year 1958-59, but reduced the penalty from Rs. 17,000 to Rs. 15,000 in respect of the assessment year 1959-60. Thereafter, at the instance of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Ghaziabad, to the Sales Tax Officer, Lucknow. The High Court came to the conclusion that when the penalty was actually imposed on the assessee, the Sales Tax Officer, Ghaziabad, had no jurisdiction over the assessee and hence the levy made was invalid. We shall presently examine the correctness of that conclusion. But, before doing so, it would be convenient to dispose of a new contention advanced by Mr. Singh, the learned counsel for the assessee. Mr. Singh contended that the registration of the assessee as a dealer before the Sales Tax Officer, Ghaziabad, was an invalid registration as the U.P. Sales Tax Act as well as the Central Sales Tax Act did not permit double registration of the same assessee. According to him, the assessee's head office was at all times at Lucknow. This is an entirely a new contention. No such contention appears to have been taken either before the authorities under the Act or before the High Court. On the basis of the material on record it is not possible to come to a firm conclusion that the same assessee had been registered at two places. Further, there is no material before us to show that during the relevant assessment years the assessee's head o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... competent to levy penalty on the assessee. But it was contended on behalf of the assessee that on March 28, 1960, the registration before the Sales Tax Officer, Ghaziabad, stood cancelled and thereafter the assessee was registered before the Sales Tax Officer, Lucknow. That being so, the Sales Tax Officer, Ghaziabad, had no jurisdiction to levy penalty on the assessee. This contention overlooks the language of section 10-A. That section definitely says that the authority who granted the certificate of registration to an assessee is one of the authorities competent to levy penalty. Undoubtedly, the Sales Tax Officer, Ghaziabad, was the authority who granted the certificate of registration to the assessee and that certificate was in force during the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60. Even though after March 28, 1960, he ceased to be the authority competent to grant certificate of registration to the assessee, he still had the competence to levy penalty on the assessee in view of the fact that it was he who had granted the certificate of registration to the assessee. In this case, we are dealing with the penalty relating to offences committed during the assessment years 1958-59 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
