LAXMANDAS RAMESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a dealer registered under the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958, as also under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. For the period from 25th October, 1965, to 12th November, 1966, the petitioner was assessed to Central sales tax at Rs. 46,644 by the order of the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax dated 29th July, 1969. In penalty proceedings for the same period, the Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 15th September, 1969, imposed a penalty of Rs. 35,000 on the petitioner under Section 43 of the State Act for concealment of the turnover under the Central Act. The petitioner filed a revision against the order imposing penalty which was dismissed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax on 28th February, 1975. Similarly, for the period from 3rd November, 1967, to 21st October, 1968, a penalty of Rs, 9,200 was imposed on the petitioner under Section 43 of the State Act for concealment of the turnover under the Central Act by order of the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax dated 12th January, 1972. A revision against this order was dismissed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax on 30th August, 1974. The petitioner then filed two applications for rectification to the Commissioner of Sales Tax drawing attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Khemka and Co. v. State of Maharashtra [1975] 35 S. T. C. 571 (S. C.), in which it. was held that penalty provisions under the State Act were not attracted for assessment of tax under Section 9 of the Central Act. The applications for rectification were allowed by order dated 27th July, 1976, passed by the Commissioner of Sales Tax and the penalties imposed for both the periods were cancelled. After the Central Act was amended by the Central Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1976, the Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax by order dated 11th July, 1977, held that the Commissioner's order dated 27th July, 1976, passed in rectification proceedings became inoperative. Recovery proceedings for penalties imposed for both the periods were started against the petitioner. The petitioner then filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for restraining the respondents to continue the recovery proceedings.

(2.) THE first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the amending Act had not the effect of reviving the orders of penalty which were cancelled by the Commissioner's order dated 27th July, 1976. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Section 43 of the State Act which provides penalty for concealment of turnover is not attracted under Section 9 of the Central Act even after the amendment. It is lastly contended that the orders of the Commissioner dismissing the petitioner's revisions against orders imposing penalty were erroneous in law.

(3.) BY Section 6 of the amending Act, Sub-section (2a) was inserted in Section 9 of the Central Act, which reads as follows :