Wilful non-registration and jurisdictional defect barred penalty; bona fide belief defeated levy and writ relief remained maintainable.

Wilful avoidance of registration was required before penalty could be imposed under section 18(6) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act; a bona fide belief that registration was not required negatived wilfulness, so the penalty for non-registration was not justified. The Court further held that the availability of alternative appellate or reference remedies did not bar writ interference where the penalty order was passed without jurisdiction, because a jurisdictional fact had to exist before such penalty could be levied. The penalty orders were quashed and relief was granted to the assessee.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether penalty for failure to register as a dealer could be imposed under section 18(6) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act when the dealer acted under a bona fide belief that he was not liable to register; (ii) whether the existence of alternative appellate and reference remedies barred interference in writ jurisdiction against an order imposing penalty without jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether penalty for failure to register as a dealer could be imposed under section 18(6) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act when the dealer acted under a bona fide belief that he was not liable to register.

Analysis: Section 15(5) and section 18(6) operate on different footing. Section 15(5) deals with failure to register without reasonable cause, while section 18(6) authorises a much larger penalty only where the authority is satisfied that the dealer wilfully failed to apply for registration. Wilfulness in this context requires intentional avoidance of registration in order to evade tax. On the facts, the dealer had a bona fide belief that he was not a dealer and was not liable to registration until the issue was decided against him in appeal, after which he applied for registration.

Conclusion: The failure to register was not wilful, and the penalty under section 18(6) was not justified; this issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the existence of alternative appellate and reference remedies barred interference in writ jurisdiction against an order imposing penalty without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The existence of an alternative remedy does not preclude writ interference where the authority lacked jurisdiction to impose the penalty in the first place. A jurisdictional fact must exist before penalty can be levied, and if that condition is absent, the court may intervene to prevent perpetuation of an illegality. The admitted writ was therefore maintainable despite other remedies having been available earlier.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable notwithstanding alternative remedies, and this issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The penalty orders for non-registration were quashed, and the petitioner obtained relief against the levy.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty for failure to register can be imposed under section 18(6) only where wilful avoidance of registration to evade tax is established as a jurisdictional fact; a bona fide belief negates wilfulness and bars the penalty.

---