9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 840X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rajnagar in the district of Sambalpur (Orissa) and it is a Government of India undertaking. The business of the petitioner is to extract coal from the mines both underground and open cast and to effect sale thereof. To carry on its business the petitioner registered itself both under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the OST Act") and the CST Act bearing Registration No. SA-III-848 and SA-III-C 561, respectively. The petitioner by its petition dated September 30, 1982 sought for an amendment of registration certificate for incorporating trucks, dumpers, tippers, front and leaders, jeeps, fork clip trucks, tyres, tubes and their spares of various description required for its mining operation. In this regard, the petitioner filed a petition dated March 8, 1983 vide annexure 2 explaining to the registering authority the purpose for which those goods were required to be included in the registration certificate. Thereafter, the learned STO allowed the prayer for amendment of the registration certificate for inclusion of the aforementioned goods in the registration certificates. Subsequently a notice under section 10A of the CST Act bearing No. 8662 dated Octob ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ST Act before imposing penalty under section 10A of the CST and holding that the petitioner was guilty of an offence coming under the scope of subsection (d) of section 10 of the CST Act. He further submitted that the penalty proceeding was initiated on the allegation of commission of offence under clause (b) of section 10 of the CST Act, but penalty was imposed for commission of offence under clause (d) of section 10 of the CST Act. According to the petitioner non-issue of a show cause notice in respect of an offence under section 10(d) of the CST Act had caused serious prejudice to the petitioner which vitiated the entire proceeding. The revisional authority has committed error of law by holding that the petitioner had been issued with show cause notice under section 10(d) of the CST Act. The further challenge of the petitioner is that both the STO and the revisional authority have committed error of law while coming to the conclusion that the disputed goods purchased under the strength of "C " declaration forms were not utilised for the purpose for which those were purchased. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on judgments of the hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Indra Singh & Sons Private Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Raigarh Circle, Raigarh reported in [1962] 13 STC 270, which has been subsequently confirmed by the honourable Supreme Court in Indra Singh Sons (P.) Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, Raigarh Circle, Raigarh [1966] 17 STC 510. However, in concluding his argument the learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that since the impugned show cause notice was issued by the STO alleging that the dealer-petitioner was guilty of offence under clause (d) of section 10 of the CST Act, the imposition of penalty under section 10A holding that the petitioner committed offence under clause (d) of section 10 of the CST Act was valid. It is not disputed that the STO has imposed penalty to the tune of Rs. 37,00,000 under section 10A of the CST Act on the ground that the petitioner is guilty of an offence under clause (d) of section 10 of the CST Act. That is why in the concluding paragraph of his order, the STO has held as follows: ". . . I consider it reasonable and judicious to impose a lump sum penalty of Rs. 37,00,000 (Rs. 37 lakhs) under section 10A of the CST Act, their having contravened the provision laid down under section 10(d) read ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n levied under sub-section (2) of section 8 in respect of the sale to him of the goods, if the sale had been a sale falling within that sub-section: Provided that no prosecution for an offence under section 10 shall be instituted in respect of the same facts on which a penalty has been imposed under this section." "Notice under section 10A of the CST Act. No. 8662/CT. Dated 2l.10.1989 To M/s. South Eastern Coal Fields At/P. O. Brajrajnagar, Dist. Sambalpur SAIIIC-561. Whereas it appears to me that you have purchased several articles worth Rs. 2,60,32,996.14 as detailed in the statement during the period from 1986-87 to 1988-89 on the strength of Central declaration forms, but the goods purchased are not specified in your registration certificate issued in favour of you and have contravened the provisions under the CST Act. You are hereby required to appear in person to show cause as to why penalty will not be imposed under section 10A of the CST Act and produce relevant books of account in support of your contention before the undersigned in this office at Jharsuguda on October 30, 1989 at 11 A.M. In the event of your failure, penalty will be imposed without any further re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice so as to enable an affected person/ dealer to know the exact allegations raised against him on the basis of which he will give his reply. A plain reading of show cause notice as quoted above, clearly shows that the show cause notice was issued alleging that the petitioner had purchased several articles worth Rs.2,60,32,996.14 during the period from 1986-87 to 1988-89 on the strength of Central declaration forms which were not specified in the registration certificate of the petitioner and by that the petitioner contravened the provisions of the CST Act. The contents of the show cause notice clearly show that the allegations are only in relation to the infraction covered by clause (b) of section 10 of the CST Act. Thus no show cause notice was issued by the STO affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to show cause why it should not be held guilty of offence under clause (d) of section 10 of the CST Act, before imposing penalty of Rs. 37,00,000 under section 10A of the CST Act holding that the petitioner was guilty of an offence under clause (d) of section 10 of the CST Act. This amounts to violation of basic principles of natural justice as well as statutory requireme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
