VIJAYA ELECTRICALS Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Joint Commissioner, dated June 2, 1981, passed in suo motu revision of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Salem, the assessee has come up in appeal.

(2.) THE appellant, M/s. Vijaya Electricals, Attur, is a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Central sales tax registration certificate No. 6331 held by the applicant, permitted it to purchase machinery and electrical goods for resale from other States under section 8(4) of the Act. THE assessing authority, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, checked the accounts of the assessee for the years 1977-78 and 1978-79, wherein it was revealed that the assessee had effected purchase of following goods by issue of C forms :

(3.) THE Joint Commissioner took up the matter in suo motu revision. During the proceedings before the Joint Commissioner, it appears, the controversy was restricted to the levy of penalty only on the purchase of ball-bearings by issue of C forms to the extent of Rs. 2, 30, 758.90. THE other goods, viz., rubber beltings, buckets and pipe fittings and huller parts, do not appear to have been made a subject of the suo motu revision by the Joint Commissioner, who proposed to revise the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner only on the relief granted with regard to the purchase of "ball-bearings". It was proposed to restore the order of the assessing authority to the extent of levy of penalty with regard to the purchase of ball-bearings for an amount of Rs. 2, 30, 758.90. Consequently, objections were invited from the assessee, who reiterated what it had urged before the assessing authority as well as the first appellate authority. It was maintained on behalf of the assessee that unless it could be shown that the representation made by the assessee was false to its knowledge and was deliberately made, the penalty provisions under section 10(b) of the Act could not be attracted. It was the case of the assessee that the mere representation based on a bona fide belief would not bring the assessee within the mischief of the provision of section 10(b) of the Act since the entertainment of the bona fide belief itself would negative the existence of mens rea on the part of the assessee, the establishment of which, it was asserted, was essential to invoke the penalty provisions contained in section 10(b) of the Act.