TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1706X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lysis, the order directing for imposition of penalty under sub-section (6) of section 20 for violation of section 10 of the Act of 2011 cannot be approved of. The orders passed by assessing officer, appellate authority and Appellate Board for imposition of penalty under sub-section (6) of section 20 of the Act of 2002 for non-registration under the Act of 2011 are set aside - the matter is relegated to assessing officer for fresh consideration under sub-section (3) of section 10 of the Act of 2011 - appeal disposed off. - V. A. T. A. No. 40 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 25-1-2019 - SANJAY YADAV AND VIVEK AGARWAL JJ. Pavan Dwivedi for the appellant. Praveen Newaskar , Government Advocate, for the respondents. JUDGMENT With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard. 2. The precise question which arises for consideration in this appeal under section Madhya Pradesh Value Added tax Act, 2002 (referred as the Act 2002 ) is whether it is lawfully for the authorities to invoke the penalty clause contained in sub-section (6) of section 20 of the Madhya Pradesh Value Added tax Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecoming liable to pay tax, apply for grant of a registration certificate. 8. Sub-section (3) of section 10 provides for the consequence of non- registration. It stipulates : (3) Where a hotelier or proprietor required to obtain a registration certificate under sub-section (1) fails to apply for the same within the time specified in sub-section (2), the appropriate Commercial Tax Officer or any other officer authorized by the Commissioner in this behalf may, after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard, direct him to pay by way of penalty a sum not exceeding five thou sand rupees, subject to a minimum of five hundred rupees. 9. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner's annual turnover is more than Five Lacs in a given financial year. As such, the provisions of 2011 Act are applicable. The petitioner got registered on March 3, 2012, i.e., much after the period prescribed under section 10(2) of the 2011 Act. Thereafter, paid tax under the Act of 2011 for the period from April 1, 2011 to March 2, 2012 to the tune of ₹ 18,24,860. That by assessment order dated March 2, 2013, the tax under 2011 Act for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an be imposed by inference or by analogy or by trying to probe into the intentions of the Legislature and by considering what was the substance of the matter. . . . 16. In Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Modi Sugar Mills Ltd. [1961] 12 STC 182 (SC) ; AIR 1961 SC 1047, it is held (page 190 in 12 STC) : 11. . . . In interpreting a taxing statute, equitable considerations are entirely out of place. Nor can taxing statutes be interpreted on any presumptions or assumptions. The court must look squarely at the words of the statute and interpret them. It must interpret a taxing statute in the light of what is clearly expressed : it cannot imply anything which is not expressed ; it cannot import provisions in the statutes so as to supply any assumed deficiency. 17. As regard to penalty under taxing statute it is observed in Commissioner, Central Excise Customs, Mumbai v. ITC Ltd. [2007] 1 SCC 62, it is held: 19. . . . Before a penalty can be levied, the procedures laid down therein must be complied with. For construction of a penal provision, it is trite, the golden rule of literal interpretation should be applied. The difficulty which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hips (pages 118 and 119 in 12 STC) : 6. . . . The use of the words 'subject to' has reference to effectuating the intention of the law and the correct meaning, in our opinion, is 'conditional upon'. 21. In Union of India v. Brigadier P. S. Gill and Krite Kumar Awasthi v. Union of India [2012] 4 SCC 463, the Supreme Court dwelling upon the issue which cropped up in the context of section 30 and section 31 of the Arms Tribunal Act, 2007 as to whether the aggrieved party can file appeal against any such final decision or order of the Tribunal under section 30 of the Act of 2007 before the Supreme Court without taking resort to procedure prescribed under section 31 thereof. While taking into consideration the law laid down in K. R. C. S. Balakrishna Chetty Sons Co. v. State of Madras [1961] 12 STC 114 (SC) ; AIR 1961 SC 1152 ; State of Bihar v. Bal Mukund Sah [2004] 4 SCC 640 ; B. S. Vadera v. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 118 and Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram [1986] 4 SCC 447, their Lordships were pleased to observe : 22. There is in the light of the above decisions no gainsaying that section 30 of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
