METCON ENGINEERING WORKS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this references, at the instance of the assessee, the Maharashtra Sales Tax Tribunal has referred the following three questions of law to this Court for opinion under section 61(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act 1959 :

(2.) THE assessee, M/s Metcon Engineering Works, is a manufacturer of fibre sheets, rubber hose pipes etc. It is a dealer registered both under the Bombay Sales Tax Act 1959 ("Bombay Act") and the Central Sales Tax, Act, 1956 ("Central Act"). The assessee filed returns of its turnover for the financial year 1978-79 with the Sales Tax Officer concerned. In its returns under the Bombay Act, the amount of tax shown due was Rs.21,067/- and after adjusting the set off, the net amount of tax payable by the assessee was shown as Rs.12,520/-. The assessee however deposited only a part of the amount due and payable by it as per its return. The amount so deposited was only Rs.6,520/-. The balance tax amounting to Rs.6,000/-, though admitted, was not paid by the assessee till the assessment was made by the Sales Tax Officer. Similarly, in its return for the same period under the Central Act, though the tax due as per the return was Rs.10,103/-, the assessee deposited Rs.6,577/- only.

(3.) WE have heard Mr.P.V.Surte, learned counsel for the assessee, who submits that section 36(2)(c) of the Bombay Act has no application to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The contention of the learned counsel is that section 36(2)(c) is applicable only to cases of concealment of the particulars of any transaction or knowingly furnishing of inaccurate particulars of any transaction and not to cases of failure to pay the tax within the time specified in the Act or the Rules. For that purpose, separate provision has been made in section 36(3) of the Act. According to him, in the instant case, admittedly there is no concealment of the particulars of any transaction or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of any transaction. The turnover disclosed in the returns and the particulars of transactions furnished were accepted in to by the Sales Tax Officer. The only default on the part of the assessee was its failure to pay a part of the tax payable by it as per return within the stipulated time for which no penalty can be imposed under section 36(2)(c) of the Bombay Act. It was contended by the learned counsel that section 36(2)(c) itself not being applicable in the instant case there was no question of taking resort to Explanation (1) thereto. Reliance was placed in support of this contention on the decision of this Court in Indoswe Engineers (P) Ltd. v State of Maharashtra (1996) 101 S.T.C. 177.