RAM LAKHAN VED PRAKASH Vs. COMMISSIONER SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is assessee's revision under Section 11(1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act (hereafter "the Act"). The assessee, a registered firm, carried on business in foodgrains and oil-seeds. It was duly registered with the department under the Act. For the assessment year 1977-78, the assessee did deposit a sum of Rs. 25, being the fee for renewal of the registration certificate but did not submit an application in form XIV for the renewal of this certificate. Rule 58(1) of the U. P. Sales Tax Rules, requires that every registered dealer who continues to be liable to registration shall submit an application in form XIV for the renewal of his certificate before the date of its expiry. The application would be accompanied by the certificate to be renewed and satisfactory proof of deposit of fee. Sub-rule (2) says that if the Sales Tax Officer is satisfied that the application has been duly made and the fee deposited, he shall renew the certificate and return it to the dealer. For non-compliance of this provision penalty is exigible under Section 15-A(l)(g), which reads :

(2.) The assessing authority accordingly issued a notice to the assessee pursuant to which none appeared on its behalf nor was any application for adjournment given nor was any written explanation filed. The assessing authority found that the disclosed turnover exceeded the prescribed limit and since the assessee had not applied for renewal of registration certificate it was liable to penalty under Clause (g) of Section 15-A(1) and it imposed the same in the sum of Rs. 4,800.

(3.) The assessee filed an appeal and contended before the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) that there was no mens rea on the part of the assessee in this behalf and the mistake was only due to a bona fide belief that the assessee was not required to do anything further and at best it was a case of technical default only. The Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) did not accept this contention because firstly Clause (g) of Section 15-A(1) like the other clauses of this Sub-section does not say that the default should have been without reasonable cause; secondly as the Supreme Court has, in Joshi, Sales Tax Officer v. Ajit Mills Limited [1977] 40 STC 497 (SC), taken the view that the notion that a penalty or a punishment cannot be cast in the form of an absolute or no-fault liability but must be preceded by mens rea is not correct, existence of mens rea was not relevant and lastly that no explanation whatsoever was submitted by the assessee . before the assessing authority. He thus confirmed the imposition of penalty but reduced the quantum thereof to Rs. 4,300. Being aggrieved, the assessee took up the matter before the Additional Judge (Revisions), Allahabad and submitted before him that the requisite renewal fee was duly deposited by the assessee and since the registration certificate which had been filed before the assessing authority during the preceding year had been lying with the assessing authority, no application in form XIV was given for the year under consideration. According to the assessee it was the duty of the assessing authority to return the registration certificate so as to enable the assessee to file it again with the application for renewal. The learned Additional Judge (Revisions) has not accepted this contention and has held that the act of the assessee in not getting the certificate of registration renewed "is an intentional act and he is to suffer for it". The penalty order has thus been confirmed, hence this further revision.