Skip to content


The State of Madras Represented by the Deputy Commissioner (C.T.) Madras Division Vs. Thiru Prem Industrial Corporation - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1970)1MLJ539
AppellantThe State of Madras Represented by the Deputy Commissioner (C.T.) Madras Division
RespondentThiru Prem Industrial Corporation
Cases ReferredM. Pais and Sons v. The State of Mysore
Excerpt:
.....an honourable acquittal, is to ensure that no person shall be tried for a second time for the same offence for which he is tried and convicted or acquitted once. what is provided under section 300(1) of cr.p.c. is only a reassurance of the constitutional right guaranteed under article 20(2). the principle behind this prescription under section 300 of cr.p.c. is to avoid double jeopardy to a person. if the code recognizes such a distinction, it may make inroads into this concept of double jeopardy. but the concept of double jeopardy, to some extent, is allergic to service law. in many cases the supreme court has made it clear - (i) that the imposition of a punishment and the denial of promotion did not amount to double jeopardy, and (ii) that the conviction by a criminal court and the..........was committed within the scope of section 10(b) of the central sales tax act, 1956. the department levied penalty at 101/2 per cent. on the view that, in the circumstances, the concessional rate would not be available and that the assessee would be liable to tax at 7 per cent. under section 8(2). the tribunal reduced the penalty to one and a half times the tax, as, in its opinion, for purposes of levying penalty, the rate of tax should be taken as that which would have been applicable if the offence had not been committed.2. we think the tribunal's view is correct. the department's view does not give effect to the concluding words of section 10a, 'if the offence had not been commited.'3. the penalty under the section should not exceed one and a half times the tax which would have been.....
Judgment:

K. Veeraswami, C.J.

1. The Revenue seeks to revise an order of the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal by which it modified the penalty imposed. It is not in controversy, and indeed, as found by the Tribunal, that the 'C' Forms had been misused and thereby an offence was committed within the scope of Section 10(b) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The Department levied penalty at 101/2 per cent. on the view that, in the circumstances, the concessional rate would not be available and that the assessee would be liable to tax at 7 per cent. under Section 8(2). The Tribunal reduced the penalty to one and a half times the tax, as, in its opinion, for purposes of levying penalty, the rate of tax should be taken as that which would have been applicable if the offence had not been committed.

2. We think the Tribunal's view is correct. The Department's view does not give effect to the concluding words of Section 10A, 'if the offence had not been commited.'

3. The penalty under the section should not exceed one and a half times the tax which would have been levied under the Act in respect of the sale effected by the assessee if the offence had not been committed under Section 10(b). The offence under that provision is that a person being a registered dealer, falsely represents when purchasing any class of goods that goods of such class are covered by his certificate of registration. The words ' if the offence had not been committed ' clearly points to the result that the tax for purposes of assessing one and a half times thereof is not that which would have been levied on the basis that the 'C Forms had not been complied with or have been misused, but, as if they have been used in a proper way. If that were not the case, there would be no meaning to the last words we have referred to.

4. Our attention has been invited to M. Pais and Sons v. The State of Mysore (1966) 17 S.T.C. 161 It is true the Mysore High Court, in this case, took a view which is in support of that taken by the Department in this case. But, with due respect, the decision does not take into account the concluding words ' if the offence had not been committed ' in Section 10-A. The tax case is dismissed.


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