Penalty for delayed return filing cannot be imported from State law where the Central Act creates no express liability.

Penalty for delayed or non-submission of returns under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 could not be imposed by importing penalty provisions from the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 through section 9(2). The Court held that section 9(2) authorises use of State machinery only for assessment, collection and enforcement of Central sales tax, and does not create a fresh substantive liability to penalty. As the Central Act did not expressly provide a penalty for this default, and sections 10 and 10A did not cover delayed filing, the penalty order was beyond statutory authority and was quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty for delay or failure in filing returns under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 could be imposed by importing the penalty provisions of the State sales tax law through section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, and whether the impugned penalty order was legally sustainable.

Analysis: Section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 was construed as authorising State authorities to assess, collect and enforce payment of tax, including penalty payable under the Central Act, by using the State machinery only for that purpose. The Court held that the provision did not create a substantive liability to penalty for delay in filing returns, because penalty is a penal burden that must be imposed clearly and expressly by statute. Section 10 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 dealt with specified offences punishable with imprisonment or fine, while section 10A concerned penalty in lieu of prosecution for particular offences, but neither covered delayed submission of returns. The State law provisions could not be imported to create a penalty where the Central Act itself did not provide one. The impugned order was also found inconsistent with the governing statutory framework and the State provision relied upon.

Conclusion: Penalty for delayed or non-submission of returns under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 could not be imposed by resorting to the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941, and the penalty order was invalid.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the writ petition was allowed, and the penalty action was quashed as beyond statutory authority.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty cannot be imposed unless the charging statute expressly creates that liability; section 9(2) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 incorporates only the State machinery for collection and enforcement, not a new substantive penalty for defaults not provided by the Central Act.

---