TMI Blog2003 (8) TMI 490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an be imposed or not. 3.. The common question of law and facts are involved for the assessment years 1979-80, 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84. The applicant is a registered dealer under section 7(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and is carrying on business of manufacture and sale of handloom cloths. He was granted registration under section 7(2) of the Central Act to import raw materials, i.e., "cotton" and "cotton yarn" against form C. Indisputably, for all these assessment years the applicant has imported cotton waste, polythene, sutli and tat. Form C has been issued by the applicant in respect of the aforesaid items also. 4.. The department on October 15, 1985 issued a show cause notice for imposition of penalty under section 10(b) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tton waste", "sutli", "tat" are not covered by the registration certificate. It is a clear case of false representation and the dealer issued form C in respect of these items which shows its mala fide. 6.. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The applicant is manufacturer of handloom cloths and was authorised to issue form C in respect of purchases of cotton. The dispute in these revisions are confined with regard to the levy of penalty on the purchases of cotton waste covered by form C. The penalty in question has been levied under section 10(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act read with section 10(b) thereof. Under this provision penalty is leviable if a person being a registered dealer falsely represent wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that case. The respondent before the Supreme Court was holding certificate of registration and in the certificate it was described as "whole manufacturer of cement". It purchased earth moving machines, comprising of bull-dozer, dumper and tipping wagons. The penalty proceeding was initiated as these items were, according to the department not covered by certificate of registration. The matter went before a division Bench of Board of Revenue. Members forming division Bench diferred in their conclusion as to whether purchases in question were covered by the certificate given to the respondents or not. The matter was ultimately referred to the third member who took a view that the purchases in question were not covered by certificate and, as s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A perusal of the said rule shows that registered dealer who wishes to obtain blank form of declaration or certificate, referred to in rule 12 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957, shall apply to the concerned Sales Tax Officer and if the concerned Sales Tax Officer is satisfied with the requisition of the dealer for blank forms that it is genuine, he may issue the same in such numbers as he may deem fit. Under sub-rule (6) of rule 8 a dealer has to maintain a register in respect of declaration form or certificate issued to him by the Sales Tax Officer. In this register the dealer is required to mention number of details, such as dates, etc., including the description of goods. Placing reliance upon this form und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing 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. The false representation and wrong representation both stand on different footing. In the present case there is no finding by the Tribunal that there was any deliberate representation by the dealer. A line of distinction has to be drawn in-between "false representation" and "wrong representation". "Wrong representation" may be on account of some inadvertence or some omission. "False representation" takes place when a person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em, but knowingly fully well that it does not, represents that issuing form "C" covers it. 13.. It is also submitted that mens rea is necessary ingredients for imposition of penalty under the aforesaid section. However, this plea has been repelled by this Court in case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Rama and Sons 1999 UPTC 425. I am bound by the aforesaid judgment. 14.. Supreme Court in the case of R.S. Joshi, Sales Tax Officer v. Ajit Mills Limited [1997] 40 STC 497; AIR 1977 SC 2279 a judgment of seven honourable Judges has held that "no mens rea no crime" has long been eroded specially regarding economic crime. That was the case under sales tax of State of Gujarat. 15.. Supreme Court in the case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
