COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX Vs. HARIRAM CHOUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Tribunal, constituted under the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), has referred to this Court under Section 44 (1) of the Act, the following question for its opinion :

(2.) THE statement of the case as also the orders of the Sales Tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, indicate that for the accounting year, 1969-70, the assessee-opposite party has filed a return for the quarter between 10th November, 1969 and 7th February, 1970, but for the remaining three quarters, however, no return was filed. The Sales Tax Officer, in regard to the quarterly return that had been filed, found that it was false and on that basis levied a penalty of Rs. 3,600 under Section 43 (1) of the Act. In regard to non-filing of the returns for the remaining three quarters, another penalty of Rs. 6,000 was levied by the Sales Tax Officer, under Section 17 (3) of the Act. This order was upheld in appeal by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, who specifically found that the imposition of penalty on the assessee under the aforesaid two sections was justified and did not require any change. However, a reduction in the amount of tax in the sum of Rs. 340 was made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Aggrieved by that order, the assessee went up in second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not reversed the finding of the Sales Tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the assessee had filed a return for the first quarter, which was found to be false and that he had not filed any return for the remaining three quarters. While dealing with the question of penalty, however, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that since penalty for non-filing of the return had already been imposed under Section 17 (3) of the Act, there was no occasion or justification for imposing another penalty for the same default under Section 43 (1) of the Act.

(3.) IT appears that the Tribunal completely missed the fact that the order of imposition of penalty was not only for non-filing of the return but was both for filing a false return for the first quarter and for non-filing of return for the remaining three quarters. It is true that in the application made on behalf of the Commissioner of Sales Tax under Section 44 (1) of the Act for making a reference to this Court, the same question has been framed, which has been referred by the Tribunal, but in the statement of the case, the Tribunal has specifically stated the case of the Commissioner of Sales Tax in para 3 of the order. It has been stated therein that the Revenue's case was that return was filed for one quarter only and that was found to be false. Penalty was imposed under Section 17 (3) of the Act for non-submission of three returns for three quarters. Penalty under Section 43 (1) of the Act was imposed because the one return filed was found to be false. It is thus apparent that even according to the statement of the case drawn up by the Tribunal; there is no dispute that it was a case where return had been filed for the first quarter, which was found to be false and no return had been filed for the remaining three quarters. On these facts, which are not only facts found but facts admitted, the Tribunal in the appellate order apparently committed an obvious error in taking the view that since penalty had already been imposed for non-filing of the return under Section 17 (3) of the Act, there was no occasion or justification for imposing another penalty for the same default under Section 43 (1) of the Act. The penalty, which has been imposed under Section 43 (1) was not for non-filing of the return but for filing a false return in respect of the first quarter.