Concessional purchase misuse under recognition certificate attracts penalty, but maximum penalty must be reasoned and proportionate.

Concessional raw materials purchased under a recognition certificate for manufacture of notified goods were used instead to make transformer parts for repair, which was treated as a use for a different purpose and attracted penalty under section 4-B(5) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948. The provision was read as not requiring proof of mens rea, because liability arose from the prohibited use itself. However, the maximum penalty was found unjustified where no reasons were recorded and the quantum should correspond reasonably to the tax difference; the penalty was therefore upheld in principle but reduced.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether raw materials purchased at concessional rate under the recognition certificate and used in manufacture of transformer parts for repair, instead of in the manufacture of transformers, attracted penalty under section 4-B(5) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948; (ii) whether absence of mens rea barred levy of penalty under section 4-B(5); and (iii) whether imposition of the maximum penalty was justified.

Issue (i): whether raw materials purchased at concessional rate under the recognition certificate and used in manufacture of transformer parts for repair, instead of in the manufacture of transformers, attracted penalty under section 4-B(5) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948.

Analysis: Section 4-B permitted concessional purchase of goods only for the purpose for which the recognition certificate was granted, namely, use in the manufacture of notified goods. The notification covered transformers as notified goods, but not spare parts or components used merely for repair. The materials purchased at concessional rate were admittedly used for manufacturing parts of transformers that were then used in repairs, not for manufacturing transformers themselves. Such use amounted to use for a purpose other than that for which the certificate was granted.

Conclusion: The levy of penalty under section 4-B(5) on this ground was upheld.

Issue (ii): whether absence of mens rea barred levy of penalty under section 4-B(5).

Analysis: The provision did not employ words importing intention, knowledge, or deliberateness. Penalty under the section was attracted by the prohibited use of goods itself, and the statutory language did not make mens rea an ingredient. The Court relied on the settled principle that in fiscal and departmental penalty provisions, mens rea is excluded when the statute so indicates by its language.

Conclusion: Mens rea was not a prerequisite for penalty under section 4-B(5).

Issue (iii): whether imposition of the maximum penalty was justified.

Analysis: Although penalty was liable to be imposed, the quantum had to be exercised reasonably and justly within the statutory limits. The authorities below had not recorded any reason for imposing the maximum penalty, and the circumstances showed that the penalty should broadly correspond to the tax differential involved rather than the highest permissible figure.

Conclusion: The maximum penalty was not justified and required reduction.

Final Conclusion: The revisions succeeded only to the extent of reduction of penalty; liability to penalty was affirmed, but the quantum was directed to be recalculated on the basis of the tax difference in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where concessional purchases under a recognition certificate are used for a purpose other than the manufacture of notified goods, penalty is attracted without proof of mens rea, but the quantum of penalty must be fixed reasonably and cannot be imposed at the maximum without justification.

---