False sales tax return penalty sustained where purchases were suppressed and mens rea was not required.

Penalty under section 48 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 is attracted where a dealer furnishes a false or incorrect return that suppresses purchases and the corresponding tax is not paid when required. Subsequent payment in a later quarter does not convert the earlier false return into a revised return under section 25(4). Mens rea is not a necessary precondition for penalty under section 48. Sections 46 and 47 do not apply because they concern failure to furnish returns or failure to pay tax, not concealment through a false return. On these principles, the penalty was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under section 48 of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973 could be imposed for filing a false quarterly return and suppressing purchases with a view to avoid tax, and whether absence of proof of mens rea or availability of sections 46 and 47 could defeat such penalty.

Analysis: The dealer was required to furnish correct quarterly returns and, before filing them, pay the full tax due under section 25(2) and section 25(3) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973. The third quarterly return suppressed purchases and the corresponding tax was not paid at the time required by law. The subsequent payment in the fourth quarter did not convert the earlier false return into a revised return within section 25(4). On the language of section 48, penalty is attracted when false or incorrect accounts, documents, or returns are furnished with the effect of suppressing sales or purchases, and proof of mens rea is not a necessary precondition. The dealer's own explanation that the tax was withheld because of financial stringency, together with the admitted suppression, supported the finding of deliberate filing of an incorrect return. Sections 46 and 47 were held inapplicable because they deal with failure to furnish returns and failure to pay tax due, not with the furnishing of a false return accompanied by concealment of purchases.

Conclusion: Penalty under section 48 was rightly sustained, and the reference was answered against the dealer and in favour of the department.

---