1980 (4) TMI 294 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

High Court quashes penalty orders, emphasizes burden of proof on department

Raysinet Kemical Company Versus State of Madhya Pradesh

The Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed the petition, quashing penalty orders for periods 1971-72 and 1972-73 under section 8(2) of the State Act. The Court ... - Issues:1. Imposition of penalty under section 8(2) of the State Act for the periods 1971-72 and 1972-73.2. Challenge of orders imposing penalty and dismissing revisions under article 226 of the Constitution.3. Interpretation of section 8(2) regarding the utilization of raw materials for manufacturing goods sold outside the State.Analysis:1. The judgment by the Madhya Pradesh High Court dealt with the imposition of penalties under section 8(2) of the State Act on a dealer registered under the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 for the periods 1971-72 and 1972-73. The penalties were imposed due to the dealer purchasing raw materials within the State at concessional rates but selling the manufactured goods outside the State, leading to a contravention under section 8(2).2. The petitioner challenged the penalty orders and revisions under article 226 of the Constitution, raising questions about the constitutional validity of sections 8(2) and 7 of the Act. However, the petitioner's counsel chose not to challenge the constitutional validity at that stage. The judgment emphasized the burden of proof on the department to establish contraventions under section 8(2) regarding the utilization of raw materials for manufacturing goods sold outside the State.3. The Court analyzed the facts for both periods, highlighting discrepancies in the assessment of penalties. For the period 1971-72, the Court found that the raw materials purchased from outside the State could have been used for manufacturing goods sold outside the State, and there was no conclusive evidence to prove otherwise. Similarly, for the period 1972-73, the Court determined that the penalty assessment was based on incorrect grounds, and directed the reassessment of the penalty in accordance with the actual utilization of locally purchased raw materials for manufacturing goods sold outside the State.In conclusion, the Court allowed the petition, quashing the penalty orders for both periods and directing the reassessment of the penalty for the year 1972-73 based on the correct utilization of raw materials. The judgment highlighted the importance of establishing clear evidence to prove contraventions under section 8(2) and ensuring penalties are assessed accurately in line with the provisions of the State Act.