BRAJA LAL BANIK Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner challenges the order of penalty dated September 2, 1980, passed by the Superintendent of Taxes, Agartala, under section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Central Act") for commission of offence under section 10 (b) of the Act and the orders passed in appeals confirming the same.

(2.) THE petitioner, a dealer carrying on business under the name and style of M/s. Auto Engineering Works, Agartala, is registered under the Central Act. In course of its business, the petitioner purchased from time to time certain goods at concessional rate by issuing C forms and submitted statements containing the requisite particulars of use and utilisation of C forms to the Superintendent of Taxes. On August 29, 1980, the Superintendent of Taxes, Agartala, issued a notice under section 10-A of the Central Act stating, inter alia, that from information in his possession he was led to believe that the petitioner had made some unauthorised purchases of goods by issuing C forms and it was reasonably suspected by him that the petitioner had committed an offence under section 10 (b) of the Central Act. By the said notice the petitioner was also directed to show cause as to why penalty under section 10-A of the Central Act in lieu of prosecution should not be imposed on him for the said offence. The petitioner showed cause by letter dated September 1, 1980. In the said letter it was stated that the petitioner had already submitted in detail as to how C forms were used by him vide his letter dated August 29, 1980. It was also pointed out that use and utilisation of C forms for purchase of materials used in the construction of factory and workshop had been done with the approval of the competent authority, namely, the Superintendent of Taxes. The utilisation of C forms was checked by authorities from time to time and approved. The petitioner, therefore, denied commission of any offence under section 10 (b) of the Central Act and asked the Superintendent of Taxes to furnish to him the details of purchases of goods in respect of which commission of offence under section 10 (b) was alleged, to enable him to explain the same. The Superintendent of Taxes, however, neither replied to the said letter nor furnished the particulars asked for by the petitioner. By order dated September 2, 1980, a penalty of Rs. 5,000 was imposed under section 10-A of the Central Act for commission of offence under section 10 (b) of the Central Act. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order before the Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, who confirmed the order of penalty. On further appeal, the Revenue Commissioner also confirmed the order of penalty. Against the said orders the petitioner has come up before this Court.

(3.) WE have heard Mr. S. Deb, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Majumdar, the learned Government Advocate, Tripura. We have perused the show cause notice issued by the Superintendent of Taxes, the cause shown by the petitioner, and the impugned order of penalty as well as the orders passed by the appellate authorities confirming the same. We have also examined the relevant provisions of the Central Act in this regard.