1962 (8) TMI 59 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court Invalidates Penalty Imposition Amendment, Emphasizes Commissioner's Role in Cooperative Society Cases

The Vidarbha Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. Versus Sales Tax Officer III, II Division, Nagpur and Others

The Vidarbha Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. Versus Sales Tax Officer III, II Division, Nagpur and Others - [1963] 14 STC 430 (Bom) Issues:- Validity of penalties imposed under the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947- Compliance with the provisions of section 16 of the Act regarding penalty imposition- Interpretation of the proviso to section 16 in relation to delegation of powersAnalysis:The judgment concerns matters under the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947, involving penalties imposed on the petitioner, a cooperative society, for delayed returns. The petitioner was fined for late submissions for two consecutive assessment years. The crux of the argument revolves around section 16 of the Act, requiring the Commissioner's approval for penalty imposition under section 10(3). Reference is made to a previous case where the Assistant Commissioner's approval was deemed insufficient, emphasizing the need for the Commissioner's sanction. The proviso to section 16 mandates prior approval for penalties, highlighting the Commissioner's pivotal role in the process. The judgment underscores the plenary nature of the proviso, emphasizing its significance in penalty imposition procedures.The court scrutinizes an amendment to rule 67 of the Act, introducing entry 11-A, allowing Assistant Commissioner's approval for penalties. However, the court deems this entry as insufficient to bypass the Commissioner's mandatory approval as per the proviso to section 16. The judgment emphasizes that rules cannot override the provisions of the parent Act, especially when it comes to critical aspects like penalty imposition. The court clarifies that the proviso acts post-delegation, ensuring the Commissioner's oversight in penalty matters. The ruling asserts that the entry at serial No. 11-A is ultra vires of the proviso to section 16, highlighting the paramount importance of statutory provisions over rule amendments.In conclusion, the court allows the petitions, setting aside the penalties imposed on the petitioner. The judgment establishes the necessity of the Commissioner's prior approval for penalty imposition under the Central Provinces and Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947. It underscores the plenary nature of the proviso to section 16, emphasizing the statutory requirements for penalty proceedings. The ruling reiterates the principle that rule amendments cannot dilute or circumvent the statutory provisions governing penalty imposition processes.