TMI Blog1993 (2) TMI 295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e showed that the goods were sold to Thomas Joseph to be delivered at Apollo Tyres and the nature of the transaction by Thomas Joseph is not ascertainable. The goods were released on November 21, 1988, on payment of Rs. 22,250 by way of security. The enquiry officer converted the same into penalty. The appellate authority confirmed the penalty imposed. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal sustained that order and dismissed the second appeal preferred by the assessee. Hence the revision. 2.. Heard counsel for the petitioner Dr. K.B. Mohamedkutty and Senior Government Pleader Sri V.C. James for the Revenue. 3.. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the detention of the goods was not warranted by any of the provisions of the Sales Tax A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the decision of this Bench rendered in P.D. Sudhi v. Intelligence Officer, Agricultural Incometax and Sales Tax [1992] 85 STC 337. Section 29A(4) of the Act enables the officer authorised under sub-section (3) of that section to serve a notice on the owner of the goods and give him an opportunity of being heard and after such enquiry the officer shall impose on the owner of the goods a penalty not exceeding twice the amount of tax attempted to be evaded in case the officer finds that there has been an attempt to evade the tax due under the Act. The Tribunal attempted to draw a distinction between the penalty provision contained in section 29A(4) and other provisions of the Act referring to sections 19 and 45A. Section 19 enables the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us or fraudulent or other blame-worthy or objectionable conduct of an assessee in fulfilling his obligations mentioned in section 45A(1) of the Act, that will attract the levy of penalty. We have no doubt in our mind that mens rea or the mental element is embedded in the crucial word 'evaded' or 'sought to be evaded' occurring in section 45A(1) of the Act." Section 19 and section 45A of the Act enable the assessing authority or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, as the case may be, to impose penalty only if the authority is satisfied that there has been either escape from assessment due to wilful non-disclosure of the assessable turnover by the dealer or that any of the grounds mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 45A is established ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aterials and the reasons for such finding should also be disclosed. The law laid down by this Court in Sudhi's case [1992] 85 STC 337 is, therefore, applicable to the present case also though the phrase used in section 29A(4) is slightly different from the phrase used in section 45A which came up for consideration in that case. On a perusal of the impugned order and the orders of the authorities below we are of the view that the maximum penalty stipulated in section 29A(4) of the Act was levied in a mechanical manner without independent evaluation and appraisal. The levy of the maximum penalty therefore, appears to be unreasonable and irrational. The reason given by the Appellate Tribunal that the penalty authorised under section 29A(4) is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
