MANGAL CHAND PHOOL CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the validity of Section 9 (2a) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), has been challenged on the ground that the Parliament has delegated its essential legislative functions in favour of the State Legislature by providing that the penalty for non-payment of taxes under the Act shall be the same as fixed under the State law as also that the procedure provided for in the State law for the realisation of such penalty could be invoked for taking similar action under the Act.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-firm was a registered dealer under the Act. It submitted periodic returns about the transactions of sale and purchase made by it. For the assessment year 1970-71, it showed its gross turnover at Rs. 88,67,705. 36, whereas the said turnover assessable according to the books produced and the list of sales worked out came to Rs. 2,06,76,966. 19. An argument was raised before the Assessing Authority that the returns had been filed correctly and the gross turnover had been worked out incorrectly because of an inadvertent mistake in totalling. This argument did not prevail with the Assessing Authority, which held that there was no absence of mens tea and the dealer was liable to pay penalty to the extent of Rs. 2,25,000. 00 under Section 9 (2) of the Act read with Section 10 (7) of the State Act.

(3.) THE learned counsel argued that in order to overcome the aforementioned obervations, the Parliament enacted Act No. 103 of 1976, by which Sub-section (2a) was added to Section 9 of the original Act, which reads as under: