Skip to content


Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Shahid HusaIn Rakesh Kumar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSales Tax Reference No. 677 of 1973
Judge
Reported in[1977]39STC520(All)
AppellantCommissioner of Sales Tax
RespondentShahid HusaIn Rakesh Kumar
Appellant AdvocateThe Standing Counsel
Respondent AdvocateR.V. Gupta and ;S.B. Sharma, Advs.
Excerpt:
.....it within the time allowed and in the manner prescribed, or to deposit the tax due under this act before furnishing the return or along with the return, as required under the provisions of this act; 4. a perusal of the two parts clearly establishes that section 15-a(1)(a) applies in a case where the dealer has failed to furnish the return under section 7, whereas sub-clause (b) applies in a case where the return has been furnished but there is deliberate concealment or the return furnished is inaccurate. the legislature has in the two sub-clauses mentioned two different categories and has also laid down different penalties in sub-clause (c). they deal with different situations and the sales tax officer in this case proceeded under section 15-a(1)(b) and from the amount of penalty..........applies in a case where the return has been furnished but there is deliberate concealment or the return furnished is inaccurate. the legislature has in the two sub-clauses mentioned two different categories and has also laid down different penalties in sub-clause (c). they deal with different situations and the sales tax officer in this case proceeded under section 15-a(1)(b) and from the amount of penalty imposed it is clear that he exercised his jurisdiction under section 15-a(1)(b) and not under section 15-a(1)(a). the language of the section clearly indicates that in a case where no return has been filed penal proceedings can be initiated only under section 15-a(1)(a). there are observations in a decision of the supreme court in narain das suraj bhan v. commissioner of sales tax.....
Judgment:

R.M. Sahai, J.

1. The following question has been referred for the opinion of this court:

Whether, under the facts and circumstances of this case, the Additional Judge (Revisions), Sales Tax, Bareilly, was legally justified in his view that the provisions of Section 15-A(1)(b) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act could not apply unless return of turnover as required by Section 7 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act had been furnished ?

2. The assessee carried on business of manufacture and sale of bricks. It did not secure any registration nor did it furnish any return of turnover as required under Section 7 of the Act. It was brought on record that in consequence of a survey a large number of books of account of the assessee for 1967-68 till the date of survey were seized. The Sales Tax Officer on the basis of the survey passed an order to the best of his judgment. Thereafter a notice under Section 15-A(1)(b) of the Act was issued and a penalty was imposed. The assessee filed an appeal which was dismissed, against which it filed a revision, which was allowed by the Judge (Revisions) on the ground that the provisions of the section under which notice was issued can apply only to cases where a dealer has furnished inaccurate particulars of his return and not to a case where he has not furnished any return at all.

3.The relevant portion of Section 15-A is quoted below :

15-A. Penalties in certain cases.-(1) If the assessing authority is satisfied that any dealer or other person-

(a) has, without reasonable cause, failed to furnish the return of his turnover or to furnish it within the time allowed and in the manner prescribed, or to deposit the tax due under this Act before furnishing the return or along with the return, as required under the provisions of this Act; or

(b) has submitted a false return of turnover under this Act.

4. A perusal of the two parts clearly establishes that Section 15-A(1)(a) applies in a case where the dealer has failed to furnish the return under Section 7, whereas Sub-clause (b) applies in a case where the return has been furnished but there is deliberate concealment or the return furnished is inaccurate. The legislature has in the two sub-clauses mentioned two different categories and has also laid down different penalties in Sub-clause (c). They deal with different situations and the Sales Tax Officer in this case proceeded under Section 15-A(1)(b) and from the amount of penalty imposed it is clear that he exercised his jurisdiction under Section 15-A(1)(b) and not under Section 15-A(1)(a). The language of the section clearly indicates that in a case where no return has been filed penal proceedings can be initiated only under Section 15-A(1)(a). There are observations in a decision of the Supreme Court in Narain Das Suraj Bhan v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1968] 21 S.T.C.104 (S.C.), which supports the view that we are taking.

5. In the circumstances, the question referred is answered in the affirmative against the department and in favour of the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //