9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (3) TMI 129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... achinery parts for resale only. On 6th August, 1962, Inspector Baijal noticed that the certificate under the Central Sales Tax Act related only to agricultural machinery parts but the petitioner was taking benefits thereunder in regard to other machinery and goods. The petitioner, therefore, asked for an amendment of the certificate and the same was granted to it on 22nd August, 1962. On 7th August, 1962, however, a notice was issued to the petitioner, which is exhibit 4, under section 10(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act in respect of the years 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62 to the effect that the petitioner was importing goods on C forms at concessional rate of 1 per cent which were not mentioned in its registration certificate under the Central Sales Tax Act and thus it committed an offence under section 10(b) of the said Act. The petitioner was required to appear with account books on 17th August, 1962, to show cause why legal action may not be taken against it. An answer was filed on 22nd September, 1962, which said that the petitioner bona fide believed during the years in question that it was entitled to import other goods, which it did, and the sales tax authorities without que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xation laws and these two provisions are distinct and serve two independent purposes. Prosecutions are ordered with a view to vindicate justice against a violation contrary to the public interest, while penalties are imposed with a view to augment the revenues from the coffers whereof the tax had leaked. Thus these two provisions of sections 10 and 10A are not violative of article 14 of the Constitution and he placed reliance on Maddula Appa Rao v. Income-tax Officer, Eluru[1959] 36 I.T.R. 140; A.I.R. 1959 A.P. 391. and S. Partap Singh v. State of PunjabA.I.R. 1964 S.C. 72. His second submission was that an action under section 10A was an indulgent treatment of a dealer which saved him from further prosecution in view of the proviso to section 10A(1), but the reverse was not correct. A person who was prosecuted under section 10 could also be penalised under section 10A. The two sections are thus not mutually exclusive. He distinguished the case of Northern India Caterers(3) on the ground that the special provision for the eviction of occupants of Government premises was a departure from the common law and there was no vindication of public justice. He also invited our attention to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it. Fazl Ali, J., inter alia, observed: "The Act itself lays down a procedure which is less advantageous to the accused than the ordinary procedure, and this fact must in all cases be the root-cause of the discrimination which may result by the application of the Act." In Northern India Caterers' caseA.I.R. 1967 S.C. 1581., the Punjab Act 31 of 1959 provided an additional remedy of eviction to the Government, a remedy which it thought was speedier than the one by way of a suit under the ordinary law. Their Lordships observed that section 5 of Act 31 of 1959 did not lay down any guiding principle or policy under which the Collector had to decide in which cases he had to follow the one or the other procedure and, therefore, the choice was left to his arbitrary will. Consequently, section 5 by conferring such an unguided and absolute discretion manifestly violated the right of equality guaranteed by article 14. Mr. Mehta laid great emphasis on this observation and urged that the sales tax authorities were left with unbridled option to prosecute some dealers and to impose penalties on others and, therefore, section 10A was violative of article 14 of the Constitution. A reference to se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the Income-tax Act. They do not leave any unfettered discretion to deal with persons similarly situated in a similar fashion. It is to be borne in mind that these two sets of provisions are designed to achieve two distinct objects. The aim and object of section 28 is to make tax evasion and concealment thereof unprofitable and unremunerative, while that of sections 51 and 52 is the vindication of public justice. While the one aims at punishing the culprit and vindicating public justice, the object of the other is to protect the revenue and to reimburse the Government for the expenditure involved in the investigation of the loss resulting from the fraud of the assessees. Their fields of operation also seem to be different except with regard to one or two matters. It is only with regard to sub-sections (2) and (4) of section 28 that there is some overlapping. Therefore, these provisions are not mutually exclusive. A person who had been subject to penalty under section 28 cannot escape prosecution under section 51. It is true that section 28(4) says that a person on whom penalty has been imposed will not be prosecuted. But this is a statutory concession and does not really bear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a futile attempt on the part of the learned Additional Government Advocate to seek resort under the words "legal action", as employed in the notice exhibit 4, as notice for an action under section 10A because the notice itself contains section 10(b) in its title, the threat of prosecution in paragraph 1 and the words "legal action" are contained in paragraph 2. The legal action, therefore, as employed in paragraph 2 will take its complexion from what precedes in it, namely, prosecution under section 10(b). It is, therefore, idle to contend that this notice was adequate notice for the purposes of section 10A. For, if such a notice was given to the dealer it would have been informed that it was proposed to impose a penalty to the extent authorised by the section for the reasons that the dealer acted contrary to the terms of the registration certificate in that behalf. The amount of tax leviable and the articles which were included within the four corners of the certificate would have been the questions that would have attracted the attention of the petitioner and he would have made an appropriate answer. If the mind of the petitioner was working on the threat of criminal action a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
