Specific penalty provision excludes overlapping penalty, and inaccurate particulars require statutory ingredients to be established.

Penalty under the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act was confined to the specific statutory default proved on the facts. Where tax-payment default was already penalised under section 11(3a), an additional penalty under section 11(1) for the same non-payment default was not justified. For section 22-A(1), mens rea was not an essential ingredient, but the statutory requirements of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars had still to be established. On the facts, deducting the tax element from a consolidated sale price in the returns did not amount to furnishing figures below the real amount, so penalty under section 22-A(1) could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under section 11(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 could be imposed in addition to penalty already imposed under section 11(3a) of the Act; whether mens rea was necessary for penalty under section 22-A(1); and whether reducing the tax element from the sale price in the returns amounted to furnishing inaccurate particulars below the real amount.

Issue (i): Whether penalty under section 11(1) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act, 1941 could be imposed in addition to penalty already imposed under section 11(3a) of the Act.

Analysis: Section 11(1) deals with failure to furnish returns in the prescribed form and time, while section 11(3a) specifically governs default in payment of tax. The Court held that where the return is filed but tax payment is defaulted, the specific penalty provision is section 11(3a), and the same default cannot be punished again under section 11(1). The earlier penalty under section 11(3a) therefore excluded the further penalty under section 11(1) for the same non-payment default.

Conclusion: The additional penalty under section 11(1) was not justified and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether mens rea was necessary for penalty under section 22-A(1) and whether reducing the tax element from the sale price in the returns amounted to furnishing inaccurate particulars below the real amount.

Analysis: Section 22-A(1) is attracted when a dealer conceals particulars of sales or furnishes inaccurate particulars and thereby returns figures below the real amount. The Court held that mens rea is not an essential ingredient of the provision, though the facts must still satisfy its statutory ingredients. On the facts found, the dealer charged a consolidated price that included sales tax, but the returns were prepared after deducting the tax element from that consolidated price and tax was paid on the reduced turnover. This did not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars below the real amount within the meaning of section 22-A(1).

Conclusion: Mens rea was not required, but the statutory ingredients of section 22-A(1) were not established on the facts, so the penalty could not stand and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The references were answered so as to set aside the penalties under section 11(1) and section 22-A(1), while leaving undisturbed the separate penalty already imposed under section 11(3a).

Ratio Decidendi: A specific penalty provision governing a particular default excludes recourse to a general or overlapping penalty provision for the same default, and penalty for concealment or inaccurate particulars can be sustained only when the statutory ingredients of the provision are actually established.

---