KISHORI LAL RAKESH KUMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER SALES TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant, hereinafter referred to as the assessee, admittedly, carried on business as an unregistered dealer in the assessment year 1973-74. The Sales Tax Officer, therefore, imposed a penalty on the assessee of Rs. 4,800 for default, as envisaged by Section 15-A(1)(g) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (for short the Act, 1948). On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) [for short the A. C. (J)] having relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1970] 25 STC 211 (SC), cancelled the penalty. He was of the view that no penalty could be imposed unless there was mens rea. He also held that no penalty could be imposed for not seeking renewal of registration under Clause (g) of Section 15-A(1). Before the A. C. (J), the assessee for the first time contended that registration certificate was given for renewal to its Munim, who forgot to get the registration renewed and that his expenses were also debited in the books. Such explanation, though was stated by the A. C. (J), in his order, was not considered by him. This is how the penalty was cancelled by him. On appeal by the Revenue the Tribunal simply observed that pursuant to a show cause notice, the assessee failed to appear before the assessing authority and that explanation was offered for the first time before the A. C. (J). Also the Tribunal held that the requirement of mens rea was "impliedly ruled out as an ingredient of the offence and the penalty becomes leviable irrespective of the intention". So the order of the A. C. (J) was reversed by the Tribunal and the order of the S. T. O. imposing the penalty was restored.

(2.) Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the assessee filed a revision before this Court, which came up for hearing before a learned single Judge of this Court, who noticed conflicting decisions of this Court in the cases of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Sadhu Singh (printed at page 335 infra) 1981 UPTC 887 and Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Goyal Bandhu (printed at page 335 infra) 1982 UPTC 596 relied on by the counsel for the assessee and Ram Lakhan Ved Prakash v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, 1981 UPTC 280 relied on by the Standing Counsel. Concluding his order the learned single Judge observed : As there are conflicting decisions on the question whether mens rea is an essential ingredient of Section 15-A(1)(g) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, I direct that the papers of this case should be laid before the Honourable the Chief Justice to constitute a larger Bench.

(3.) It is in this back drop that the revisions has come up for decision before this Division Bench.