H.K.BHARTI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT was alleged against the petitioner that while functioning as Sales Tax Officer in the Enforcement Branch of the Sales Tax Department, Government of NCT of Delhi on July 24, 2002, he impounded truck No.DL -1G -9270 carrying semi -refined paraffin wax. The consignee was M/s.Sunrise International Jaipur. But the driver of the truck informed him that the goods were meant to be unloaded at A -17, Jhilmil Colony, Industrial Area Delhi where a firm by the name of M/s. Tara Chand & Sons was carrying on business. He passed an order on July 30, 2002 releasing the truck after levying tax in sum of Rs.8,571/ - and penalty in sum of Rs.21,429/ -. It was alleged in the charge memo that as per the 4th Schedule to the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, wax, except petroleum wax used for manufacturing candles, was required to be taxed at the rate of 20% of the value of the goods. The relevant provisions of the Delhi Sales Tax Act 1975 empowered him to levy penalty up to 2.5 times of the normal rate of tax. It was further alleged that since the goods were intended for sale in Delhi and not to be delivered at Jaipur as also that the same were impounded without bill/challan/goods received i.e. in the absence of documents from the owner of the goods regarding end use of wax, he ought to have taxed the goods at the rate of 20%, which amount would be Rs.46,608/ - and the penalty would be Rs.1,16,520/ - i.e. totaling Rs.1,63,128/ -; since tax and penalty levied was only Rs.30,000/ -, revenue loss amounting to Rs.1,33,128/ - was occasioned.

(2.) THE stand of the petitioner was that 2.5 times of the tax was the maximum penalty which could be levied and thus a wrong discharge of his quasi judicial functions could not be made the subject matter of a domestic inquiry. As regards the tax levied, he stated that since the dealer told him that the end use of the wax was manufacturing candles, he levied the correct tax. To understand the exact contours of the charge, it would be useful to note the statement of imputation of misconduct, which reads as under: -

(3.) CONSIDERING the evidence led at the inquiry and taking note of the defence of the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer indicted the petitioner and the reasoning of the learned Inquiry Officer reads as under: -