HARIDAS Vs. ASST COMMR OF SALESTAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner/appellant was an assessee to Sales Tax from whom arrears of Sales Tax were due in respect of assessments for the years 1970-71 to 1973-74. The arrears amounted to Rs. 1,07,667/-. He seems to have approached the Government for permission to pay up the arrears in instalments and Ext. P2 order dated 9 10 72 was passed by the Secretary to Government of the Revenue Department allowing him the facility of instalment payment of Sales Tax and Employees Provident Fund at the rate of Rs. 5000/- each (total monthly payment of Rs. 10,000/-). The petitioner has averred that the instalments as permitted by Ext. P2 order were paid from 1972 and the arrears were liquidated by July 1974. He has produced Ext. P3 statement showing the payments made and the dates on which they were made. The averments made in this respect have not been controverted. Exts. P4 to P7 orders were passed by the Sales Tax Officer imposing penalty on the writ petitioner for default of payment of the arrears of Sales Tax. Ext. P4, as penalty of Rs. 11.091.98 was imposed by order dated 29-11-73. Ext. P5 is dated 12-11-74 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,479.42. Ext. P6 is dated 9-11-74 and the penalty imposed was Rs. 5, 184.46. Ext. P7 is dated 18-11-74 and the penalty imposed was Rs. 1.313.17. Ext. P4 order was carried up in revision and dismissed by Ext. P8 dated 27-2-75. The writ petition which has given rise to this appeal was preferred to quash Exts. P4 to P8 and for consequential reliefs. The learned Judge observed in the first paragraph of the judgment that Ext. P9 was the petition for stay filed by the petitioner in revision and Ext. P10 is the order thereon, by which the stay petition was rejected and that the writ petition was to quash Ext. P10 order. This is a mistake, as the petitioner prayed clearly to quash Exts. P4 to P7. The learned Judge disposed of the writ petition in the following fashion:

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of Ext. P2 order which was duly complied with, the penalty was not imposable at all, and that Exts. P4 to P7 orders cannot therefore be sustained. It was also represented that by the time of the learned Judge's judgment, the revisions against Exts. P5 to P7 had been dismissed by order dated 26 7 1975 communicated on 18-8-75. The answer made on the side of the learned Government Pleader was that Ext. P2 order of the Government is not an order statutorily sanctioned or recognised, and therefore the same cannot avail the petitioner against the liability to pay penal interest or the penalty. We may note the provisions of S.23(3) and S.24 of the Sales Tax Act:

(3.) We allow this appeal and modify the judgment of the learned Judge: O.P. No. 3575 of 1975 will stand allowed to the extent that the orders dated 26 7 75 on Exts. P5 to P7 revisions will stand quashed. We repeat that nothing said in this judgment should be understood as precluding the Sales Tax authorities, if so entitled and so advised, from proceeding to recover the penal interest in accordance with law. We affirm the finding of the learned Judge regarding Exts. P4 and P8 orders. The Original Petition will stand dismissed as far as these orders are concerned. There will be no order as to costs.