STATE OF TAMILNADU Vs. TVL NU TREAD TYRES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point that present itself before the Full Bench is whether mens rea is an essential ingredient for the levy of penalty under Section 10(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) THE decisions of this Court under Section 10-A of the Act have not been consistent, while in some of the decisions such as State of Tamil Nadu v. Betala Industries (1993)88 STC 328, Sri Lakshmi Machine Works v. State of Madras (1973) 32 STC 407 and in Dharmapuri District Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu (1991) 82 STC 296, it was held that it was necessary to find out whether the act or omission of the assessee resulting in commission of the violations of the Act and dealt with in clauses (b), (c) and (d) of Section 10 of the Act, mens rea was present, in Vijaya Electricials v. State of Tamil Nadu (1991) 82 STC 268, Kumudham Printers (P) Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) 95 STC 453, State of Tamil Nadu v. C.A.Akthar and Co. (1998) 108 STC 510, State of Tamil Nadu v. Srinath Pharma (1998) 110 STC 177, Chennai Textile Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2002 (125) STC 107, Bhuvaneshwari Traders v. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 143 STC 608 it was held that there was nothing in Section 10-A of the Act which requires that mens rea must be established before penalty can be levied under that provision. Before we deal with this problem in the light of the statutory provisions we will state the material facts which have given raise to this reference. T.C.No.82 of 1997

(3.) IN reply, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that there is nothing in Section 10-A of the Act which requires that mens rea must be proved before penalty can be levied under that provision if on facts, it is found that the assessee had made a 'false representation'. Once a finding is recorded by the competent authority that the assessee has made a false representation, that would clearly attract the provisions of section 10(b) of the Act and no further finding is required that the assessee had also mens rea.