TMI Blog1998 (11) TMI 660X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as according to him the declaration made in Form C was false because the registration certificate did not authorise the dealer to purchase the aforesaid items. The contention of the dealer was that he was under impression that the registration certificate in using Form C there was no evil intention on its part. The assessing officer did not accept this contention and levied a penalty of ₹ 20,380/ being 1-1/2 times and the tax payable. On appeal, the learned Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) set aside the penalty accepting the contention of the assessee that there was no mens rea on the part of the assessee because the biscuits and toffees are taxable at the same rate. The Commissioner appealed to the Tribunal which concurred with the view taken by the first appellate authority. It observed that the coffees and biscuits were purchased through common invoice and both the items are taxable at the same rate and the dealer had been submitting the requisite details in the sales tax office from time to time and, therefore, there was no mens rea or evil intention on the part of the dealer. 3. S.T.R. Nos. 130 and 131 of 1994 are directed against a common order dated 15th September ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ificate of registration. The representation contemplated by these provisions is made in Form C prescribed under the Central Sales Tax Act (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957. The said form requires a certificate certified that the goods ordered for in our purchase order No........dt..........and supplied as per bill.....dt.......are covered by my/our registration certificate No.....dt...........issued under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. It has been concurrently held by the authorities below that the goods purchased by the two dealers i.e. toffees and chewing gum were not mentioned in the certificate of registration and were not covered thereby. The statements made by the dealers were, therefore, untrue but the penalty has been quashed on the ground that mere was no mens rea in making the wrong averments in Form C. The learned Counsel for the Commissioner placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in Vijaya Eleetricals v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1991) 82 S.T.C. 268 in which a Division Bench headed by Hon'ble Dr. A. S. Anand, Chief Justice, as his Lordship then was, held that in a case for penalty under Section 10-A read with Section 10 (b) of me Act me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifies knowingly or negligently untrue. Therefore, untrue statement which is made knowingly or negligently would be false and the concept of mens rea even if applicable would stand established. Reliance is also placed on M/s. Spring Valley Fruits Product Co. Ltd. v. C.S.T., 1994 U.P.T.C. 1207 in which plant and machinery was included in registration certificate and the assessee purchased a generator for producing electricity. It was found that the purchase of generator was made in bona fide belief that it was an item of plant and machinery and was covered by registration certificate and, therefore, it was not the case of making a false representation. 8. The principle of mens rea comes from English Criminal Law from times when the law was not codified. It was said that actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea (the intent and act must both concur to constitute the crime). But this principle has lost much of his significance owing to greater precision of modern statutes. The nature of intent or the ingredients of offences are now clearly stated in the statutes and nothing further is required to establish as offence then what the statute specified. We have words like 'voluntarily& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion, remedial and coercive in its nature, and is far different from the penalty for a crime or a fine or foreiture provided as punishment for the violation of criminal or penal laws. 10. In my view therefore apart from the falsehood of the representation it is not necessary to establish mens rea as an independent factor. Normally in view of the aforesaid judgments of this Court I should have referred the matter to a larger Bench but in my view this is not necessary because from the facts that were established on record even means rea was established. 11. In S.T.R. No. 129 of 1994 the assessee held a registration certificate only for biscuits while it purchased toffees and issued Form C. Admittedly, the representation in Form C was made in order to gain a financial advantage by paying tax at a lower rate and thereby depriving the State of a portion of the tax leviable on the sale of toffees. The provisions of the Central Sales Tax Act lay obligation on a dealer to act carefully while issuing Form C and conduct of the assessee shows that he was atleast grossly negligent if not deliberately false. The dealer's conduct cannot be termed as bona fide as it was patently done w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
