High Court quashes penalty under Sales Tax Act, orders sale proceeds to petitioner

The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing penalty proceedings under section 28-A of the Mysore Sales Tax Act. The court ordered the sale proceeds of the gunnies to be paid to the petitioner and granted costs of the petition, including an advocate's fee of Rs. 100. The penalty imposition was deemed unwarranted as the goods were being transported for a specific purpose of bringing manure, not for sale as required by form No. 39.

---

---

Issues:
Violation of section 28-A of the Mysore Sales Tax Act, 1957 by the driver of a goods vehicle leading to a penalty imposition. Interpretation of the requirement of a delivery note prescribed under form No. 39 for transportation of goods.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a hardware merchant, hired a goods vehicle to transport empty gunny bags for bringing fish manure. The driver was stopped at a check post and asked for specific documents under the Mysore Sales Tax Rules. Despite providing a certificate of ownership, a penalty was levied on the driver for contravention of section 28-A of the Act. The petitioner argued that the penalty was unjust as he was not selling the goods and the purpose was clearly stated in the certificate. The High Court Government Pleader contended that a delivery note was required as per form No. 39 for transporting goods for storage or sale, citing clause 4(c). However, the court found that in this case, the goods were not being transported for sale but for a specific purpose of bringing manure, thus the penalty imposition was unwarranted.

The High Court, in its judgment, allowed the writ petition, quashing the proceedings of the first respondent under section 28-A(4) of the Act. Additionally, since the three bundles of gunnies belonging to the petitioner were sold by the respondent, the court ordered the sale proceeds to be paid to the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner was granted costs of the petition, including an advocate's fee of Rs. 100. The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence supporting the contravention of the Act in the given circumstances, emphasizing the specific purpose for which the goods were being transported as mentioned in the certificate provided by the petitioner.

---