CALCOME ELECTRONICS LIMITED Vs. SALES TAX OFFOCER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a dealer registered under the Delhi Sales-tax Act, 1975 (in short the 'Act'), and the Central Sales-tax Act, 1956 (in short the 'Central Act'). Penalty was levied on it for late filing of returns for the month of February, 19 under the aforesaid Acts. Such imposition was affirmed by Additional Commissioner of Sales-tax III (Revision). Such levy is challenged in this petition.

(2.) Brief reference to the factual aspects would be necessary for adjudication of the issues involved. An application was filed under Rule 48 of the Delhi Sales-tax Rules, 1975 (for short the 'Rules') before the Commissioner of Sales-tax, Delhi (in short the 'Commissioner') praying for extension of time to pay the tax due for the month of February, 1996. Prayer was made for grant of time till 31st March, 1996. Commissioner granted extension of time for payment of tax by order dated 22nd March, 1996 upto 25th March, 1996. Order passed by the Commissioner reads as follows :

(3.) According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Sales-tax Officer did not consider the explanation offered and merely stating that the explanation was not satisfactory, levied penalty. He also took into account non-deposit of advance tax as directed by Commissioner to be a factor to levy penalty. These according to him shows non-application of mind, and/or consideration of irrelevant materials. It is additionally pleaded that the Authorities have taken a very serious note because Commissioner's direction to pay tax for the month of March, 1996 was not complied with. Revisional Authority fell into errors by holding that tax having been collected from the customers there was no question of any grant of time. When statute provides a particular period during which payment can be made any insistence of payment for a period which has not fallen due cannot be a ground to draw adverse inference. Further, when statute itself provides for extension of time, view of Revisional Authority is irrational. Penalty levied is heavy and exorbitant when considered in the background of period of delay. The order communicated in the cyclostyled form itself shows non-application of mind, particularly when there was no mention of any order stated to be passed in the order-sheet.