1978 (6) TMI 155 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court upholds penalty under Sales Tax Act, dismisses revision petition. Penalties under different sections not precluded.

Josekutty Lukose Versus The State of Kerala

The Court dismissed the tax revision petition challenging the imposition of a penalty under section 19(2) of the Sales Tax Act for the assessment year ... - Issues:1. Assessment and imposition of penalty under section 19(2) of the Sales Tax Act.2. Contention regarding imposition of two penalties for the same contravention or irregularity.3. Comparison of sections 19(2), 46, and 47 of the Act.4. Judicial interpretation of the difference between criminal prosecution and imposition of penalty.5. Dismissal of the tax revision petition.Analysis:The case involves a tax revision petition by the assessee against the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal's order reopening the assessment and imposing a penalty under section 19(2) of the Sales Tax Act for the assessment year 1968-69. The Tribunal's order was based on the suppression of turnover in the assessee's account books. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner initially set aside the penalty, but the Tribunal reinstated it, leading to the revision petition.The main argument presented on behalf of the assessee was that imposing two penalties for the same contravention, one under sections 46 and 47 related to criminal prosecution and the other under section 19(2) for penalty, would be against the Act's scheme and purpose. However, the Court found this contention to be without merit. The Court highlighted the distinct nature of the provisions under sections 46, 47, and 19(2) of the Act, emphasizing that the imposition of penalties under these sections serves different purposes and does not preclude each other.The Court compared the provisions of sections 46 and 47, which deal with criminal prosecution and composition of offenses, with section 19(2), which pertains to the imposition of a penalty by the taxing authority for non-disclosure of assessable turnover. The Court referenced previous decisions from the Andhra High Court and the Gujarat High Court to support its interpretation of the difference between criminal prosecution and penalty imposition under the Act.Based on the legal principles and interpretations discussed, the Court concluded that the order of composition under section 47 of the Act does not bar the imposition of a penalty under section 19(2). Therefore, the Court dismissed the tax revision petition without any order as to costs, upholding the imposition of the penalty by the Sales Tax Officer.In conclusion, the Court's judgment clarified the distinct nature of penalties under different sections of the Sales Tax Act and rejected the contention that the composition of offenses under one section would preclude the imposition of a penalty under another section.