ORIENTAL ENGINEER COMPANY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Oriental Engineering Company, Jaipur has made two applications, one under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and the other under sec. 9 (3) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 read with sec. 14 (2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, against the order of the Board of Revenu, Rajasthan dated May 24, 1967 and they can be conveniently disposed of together.

(2.) THE petitioner is a registered firm under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and has been carring on the business of selling diesel engines, generators, electric motors, pump, bearings, etc. at Jaipur. It is registered as a dealer both under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and the Central Sales Tax Act. On July 12, 1957 the petitioner applied to be registered as a dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act and a certificate was issued to it in respect of agricultural machinery parts for re-sale only. On August 6, 1962 Inspector Baijal noticed that the certificate under the Central Sales Tax Act related only to agricultural machinery parts but the petitioner was taking benefits thereunder in regard to other machinery and goods. THE petitioner, therefore, asked for an amendment of the certificate and the same was granted to it on the 22nd of August, 1962 On 7th of August, 1968, however, a notice was issued to the petitioner, which is Ex. 4, under sec. 10 (b) of the Central Sales Tax Act in respect of the years 1959-60, 1960 61 and 1961-62 to the effect that the petitioner was importing goods on 'c' Forms at concessional rates of 1 per cent which were not mentioned in its registration certificate under the Central Sales Tax Act and thus it committed an offence under sec. 10 (b) of the said Act. THE petitioner was required to appear with account books on 17-8-1963 to show cause why legal action may not be taken against it. An answer was filed on September 22, 1962, which said that the petitioner bona fide believed during the years in question that it was entitled to import other goods, which it did, and the Sales Tax authorities without question permitted it to do so. THE petitioner also added that there was malafide and still if the Department prosecutes it then it will defend itself in a competent court of law. THE assessing authority, however held that the petitioner's plea was untenable because it had in possession the registration certificate and yet it could never detect the mistake till it was pointed out by Shri Baijal, ASTO and after calculating the figure imposed a penalty under sec. 10a of the Central Sales Tax Act against the petitioner in the sum of Rs. 4,000/ -. THE petitioner appealed but the Deputy Commissioner, Excise and Taxation (Appeals) confirmed the order of the Sales-tax Officer, 'b'circle, Jaipur. THE petitioner as well as the State preferred revision applications before the Board of Revenue, which by its order of January 17, 1967 (Ex. 9) dismissed the petitioner's revision-application and enhanced the penalty from Rs. 4,000/- to 10,000/ -. It is this order of the Board of Revenue which is challenged before us in the petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. An application under sec. 9 of the Central Sales Tax has also been made.