Penalty under CST registration law upheld where the registering authority had jurisdiction and later C forms did not cure earlier purchases.

Penalty under section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 could be imposed by the authority competent to grant registration, because the registering authority under section 7 and the relevant rules included the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. The penalty was therefore upheld as within jurisdiction. C forms issued only after the purchases, and a later amendment of the registration certificate, did not retrospectively cover goods bought earlier when they were not included in the certificate. The later forms did not cure the original breach, and the reduced penalty left by the Tribunal was not disturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether penalty under section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 could be levied by the authority competent to grant registration; and (ii) whether C forms issued after the purchase and amendment of the registration certificate could protect purchases made earlier when the goods were not covered by the certificate of registration.

Issue (i): whether penalty under section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 could be levied by the authority competent to grant registration.

Analysis: Section 7 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 governs registration of dealers, and section 10A operates in relation to the authority that grants registration. Rule 5 of the Central Sales Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1957 and the relevant notification contemplate the notified authority under the local sales tax law as the registering authority. On that basis, the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was competent to grant registration and therefore competent to levy penalty under section 10A.

Conclusion: The levy of penalty by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes was valid and was not vitiated for want of jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): whether C forms issued after the purchase and amendment of the registration certificate could protect purchases made earlier when the goods were not covered by the certificate of registration.

Analysis: The goods were purchased before the relevant amendment of the registration certificate and were not then covered by the certificate. Subsequent issue of C forms or later amendment of the certificate did not extend coverage retrospectively to purchases already completed. The assessee's status as an export oriented unit and the reduction already granted by the Tribunal did not displace the contravention established on the date of purchase.

Conclusion: The later C forms did not cure the earlier breach, and no further interference with the reduced penalty was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed, and the penalty order as modified by the Tribunal was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty under section 10A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 may be imposed by the authority competent to grant registration, and C forms issued after the date of purchase do not retrospectively validate transactions not covered by the registration certificate on the date of purchase.

---