Penalty for non-registration is discretionary, not automatic, and may be upheld where the default shows conscious disregard of the law.

Penalty for carrying on business without registration was not automatic on mere proof of non-registration; the assessing authority had to exercise judicial discretion on the facts, including bona fides and the nature of the default. Even though the provision did not expressly require mens rea, penalty proceedings remained quasi-criminal and could be declined for a technical or venial breach. On the facts, the dealer had earlier renewed registration, paid renewal fee, filed returns and tax, but failed to apply for renewal or offer any explanation, so the omission was treated as conscious disregard of the statutory obligation and the penalty was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty for carrying on business without obtaining registration under section 15-A(1)(g) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act can be imposed automatically on mere proof of non-registration, or whether the authority must exercise judicial discretion on the facts and circumstances, including bona fides and mens rea.

Analysis: The provision for penalty was held not to create an automatic liability. The assessing authority must be satisfied that the default occurred and then may, after inquiry, impose penalty. The exclusion of mens rea from the clause was distinguished from automatic levy, because the statutory scheme still leaves room for discretion. Reliance was placed on the principle that penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal and are not ordinarily to be imposed where the breach is technical, venial, or committed under a bona fide belief. On the facts, the assessee was a registered dealer who had earlier renewed its certificate year after year, had deposited the renewal fee in time, filed returns, and paid tax, but failed to submit the renewal application. The assessee offered no explanation before the assessing authority and did not show any circumstances preventing compliance. The omission was therefore treated as conscious disregard of the statutory obligation rather than a mere technical default.

Conclusion: Penalty under section 15-A(1)(g) was rightly attracted, and the refusal to interfere with the penalty was correct.

Final Conclusion: The revisions were not maintainable on the facts found, since the authorities had exercised discretion judicially and the assessee was not entitled to relief from penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Even where mens rea is not expressly required for a fiscal penalty provision, the authority must still exercise judicial discretion and may refuse penalty for a bona fide or technical breach, but not where the default amounts to conscious disregard of a statutory obligation.

---