A ABDUL GAFOOR Vs. DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER praying to issue writs of certiorari to call for the records in No. TI/76230/95 SMR No. 717 of 1996 in W. P. No. 13415 of 1999, SMR No. 718 of 1996 in W. P. No. 13416 of 1999, SMR No. 719 of 1996 in W. P. No. 13417 of 1999, SMR No. 720 of 1996 in W. P. No. 13418 of 1999 and SMR No. 721 of 1996 in W. P. No. 13419 of 1999 respectively on the file of the second respondent and quash the order dated June 23, 1998.

(2.) IN the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions, the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is carrying on business in hardwares, paints, varnish, coir, leather, etc. , that in respect of the assessment years 1989-90 in W. P. No. 13415 of 1999, 1990-91 in W. P. No. 13416 of 1999, 1991-92 in W. P. No. 13417 of 1999, 1992-93 in W. P. No. 13418 of 1999 and 1993-94 in W. P. No. 13419 of 1999 respectively the petitioner purchased hand pumps, filter points, gate valves, G. I. fittings, check valves, socks and other water supply materials for which the petitioner has issued "c" form in respect of the inter-State purchase; that even though the petitioner requested the assessing authority as early as on September 26, 1989 to include G. I. fittings, hand pumps, filter points, gate valves, etc. , the first respondent came to the conclusion that the petitioner had misused the "c" form and levied penalty under section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, against which the petitioner filed an appeal as a result of which the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Thanjavur, set aside the penalty with an observation, that the appellant was under bona fide belief in his representation, as the impugned goods had been subjected to tax for all these years by the assessing officer without any interference and hence the representation should not be considered to be false to the knowledge of the appellant and hence the provision under section 10 (b) of the CST Act could not be attracted and levied minimum penalty and disposed of all the appeals.

(3.) THE subject-matter is pertaining to the assessment of the petitioner by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Papanasam for the years 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 under section 10-A of the CST Act levied penalty of Rs. 21,051 in W. P. No. 13415 of 1999, Rs. 11,738 in W. P. No. 13416 of 1999, Rs. 27,038 in W. P. No. 13417 of 1999, Rs. 28,856 in W. P. No. 13418 of 1999 and Rs. 2,297 in W. P. No. 13419 of 1999 respectively. It further comes to be known that aggrieved of the order of the assessing officer that the petitioner-dealer had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Thanjavur, based on certain reasons and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Thanjavur, modified the case on certain grounds in exercise of his powers and levied only a penalty of Rs. 1,500 for the year 1989-90, Rs. 1,000 for the year 1990-91, Rs. 2,000 for the year 1991-92, Rs. 2,000 for the year 1992-93 and Rs. 500 for the year 1993-94 respectively; that against the said order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Thanjavur, dated July 3, 1995, proceedings of suo motu revision has been initiated by the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Chennai, on ground that the controversial letter said to have been written by the appellant to the assessing officer dated August 26, 1989 was fabricated one. It would be argued on the part of the department that the very act of the dealer having submitted the application for amending the certificate would show that he was not empowered to purchase goods, without the same having been incorporated in the certificate thus, the offence coming to be proved. THErefore, they would justify the action of the assessing officer levying penalty under section 10-A of the CST Act, particularly in the light of the ruling of the Madras High Court in the case reported in State of Tamil Nadu v. Amrutanjan Ltd. [1995] 97 STC 412, and they would pray to set aside the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (CT), Thanjavur, and to restore the order passed by the assessing officer dated March 7, 1995.