Central sales tax penalty requires express statutory authority; state penalty provision could not be used for recovery.

Delay was not accepted as a ground to refuse the writ petition because recovery proceedings were still pending, the petitioner had earlier approached the court in revision within time, and the later writ was treated as a continuation raising an additional constitutional challenge. On penalty, the State recovery machinery under section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act was held to be only procedural; the liability to penalty had to arise from the Central Act itself or by express adoption. As the Central Act contained no corresponding authority, penalty under the Mysore Sales Tax Act could not be imposed for default in payment of Central sales tax, and the demand and recovery steps were quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition should be refused on the ground of delay; (ii) Whether penalty under section 13(2)(b) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 could be levied for default in payment of tax assessed under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition should be refused on the ground of delay.

Analysis: The recovery proceedings were still pending, the petitioner had already approached the court in revision within time, and the writ petition was filed while the earlier proceeding was pending to raise an additional constitutional challenge. In these circumstances, the petition was treated as a continuation of the earlier proceedings and was not rejected for delay.

Conclusion: The objection based on delay was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty under section 13(2)(b) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 could be levied for default in payment of tax assessed under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.

Analysis: Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, as amended, applies the State machinery for assessment, collection and enforcement as procedural machinery, but the liability to tax or penalty must still be determined by the Central Act. Penalty provisions in a taxing statute are substantive in character and are not attracted unless expressly adopted or adopted by necessary implication. Since the Central Act contained no corresponding provision authorising the impugned penalty, the State penalty provision could not be invoked for recovery of tax assessed under the Central Act.

Conclusion: Penalty under section 13(2)(b) of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 was not leviable for default in payment of Central sales tax, and the impugned recovery was without authority of law.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the penalty recovery succeeded, and the notice of demand and consequential recovery steps were quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: State recovery provisions applicable under section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 extend only to procedural machinery; a penalty can be levied for Central sales tax dues only if the Central Act itself authorises it or expressly adopts the State penalty provision.

---