COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX Vs. QURESHI CRUCIBLE CENTRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment of a learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court allowing the Sales Tax Revision filed by the assessee. The matter arises under the U. P. Sales Tax Act. Section 8(1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act reads as follows :

(2.) In this case, the dealer filed a return for the assessment year 1975-76. The goods in which he was dealing fell within the category of unspecified goods. For unspecified goods, the rate of tax prior to 1-12-1973 was 3.5%. with effect from the said date, however, the rate was revised to 7%. In the return filed by the respondent-assessee, he arrived at the tax admittedly payable on the turnover disclosed by him, by applying rate of 3.5%.. The authorities held that in as much as he has not paid the tax admittedly payable within the meaning of Section 8(1) in as much as he has not calculated and paid the tax at the rate prescribed by law he must be held to have failed to comply with the requirement of Section 8(l). Accordingly, interest as prescribed by the said section was levied. The appellate authority as well as the Tribunal affirmed the said levy. The matter was carried to the High Court by way of a revision. The learned Judge allowed the revision holding that "there have been no finding by the Tribunal that the assessee acted mala fide in not depositing the tax at the rate of 7%. The demand of interest was not justified.".

(3.) We are unable to see any relevance of the mala fides in this case. Section 8(1) does not say that the non-payment should be mala fide. This is also not a case where the rate of tax applicable was in dispute or disputed by the dealer. This is simply a ease where the dealer calculated the tax at an inapplicable rate. He did not and could not plead ignorance of the change in rate of tax effected two years earlier. In the circumstances, the concept of mala fides was not relevant in the context.