Skip to content


Bapu and Company Vs. the State of Madras (Represented by the Joint Commercial Tax Officer) - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1968)1MLJ455
AppellantBapu and Company
RespondentThe State of Madras (Represented by the Joint Commercial Tax Officer)
Cases ReferredLtd. v. Commissioner of Saks Tax
Excerpt:
- .....of any contract. this provision was amended with effect from 1st october, 1958 and under the amended provision use of goods by the assessee in execution of any contract is not permitted. there is no dispute that the forms actually issued to the assessee were those in vogue as we said prior to the amendment. after the purchase of goods the assessee used them in execution of certain works contracts which he had entered into. on the ground that in doing so he contravened section 10(d), the penalty was levied. the majority members of the tribunal upheld the penalty. it seems to us that the liability to penalty under section 10(d) is not an absolute one. it is only where after purchases of any goods for any of the purposes specified in clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 8, the.....
Judgment:

K. Veeraswami, J.

1. This petition is directed against the levy of penalty of Rs. 8,978 under Section 10(d) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. The petitioner purchased electrical goods between 1st October, IJ958 and 31st March, 1961 but under the C. Forms in Vogue prior to 1st October, 195(r). As the law then stood, Section 8(3)(i) included in the C. Form goods intended not only for re-sale but also for use in the manufacture of goods for sale of for use in the execution of any contract. This provision was amended with effect from 1st October, 1958 and under the amended provision use of goods by the assessee in execution of any contract is not permitted. There is no dispute that the forms actually issued to the assessee were those in vogue as we said prior to the amendment. After the purchase of goods the assessee used them in execution of certain works contracts which he had entered into. On the ground that in doing so he contravened Section 10(d), the penalty was levied. The majority members of the Tribunal upheld the penalty. It seems to us that the liability to penalty under Section 10(d) is not an absolute one. It is only where after purchases of any goods for any of the purposes specified in Clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 8, the purchaser fails, without any reasonable excuse, to make use of goods for any such purpose that he will be liable to penalty. Possibly because of the old forms issued to him, the assessee was under a misapprehension that even after the amendment with effect from 1st October, 1958 he could use the electrical goods in execution of contracts. If it were a case of assessment, he would certainly be governed by the amended Section 8(3)(b). That was what was held by the Supreme Court in Modi S. & W. Mills Co., Ltd. v. Commissioner of Saks Tax : [1965]1SCR592 . He could not in that case take cover under the C. Forms which were current prior to 1st October, 1956. But a case of penalty stands on a different footing as the relevant provision itself provides. It is only where the use for another purpose is without reasonable excuse, the penalty will be justified. Where reasonable excuse is shown no penalty could be levied. In a similar case that was the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Viswanathan & Co. v State of Madras (1965) 16 S.T.C. 125 : I.L.R. (1965) 2 Mad. 263. With respect, we share that view.


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