Penalty for tax compliance defaults requires deliberate or dishonest conduct; a later audit objection alone was insufficient here.

Penalty under section 21(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Act was not automatic and required deliberate defiance of law, contumacious conduct, dishonest intent, or conscious disregard of the statutory obligation. Where the assessee had filed returns, assessment had already been completed, and tax had been accepted at a particular rate, a later audit objection suggesting a different tax rate on the product sold did not by itself justify penal action. On those facts, the omission was not treated as deliberate or dishonest, and the penalty was held unsustainable; the impugned orders were quashed to that extent in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty could be imposed under section 21(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2002 when the assessee had filed returns and the assessment was later reopened on an audit objection.

Analysis: Penalty for failure to comply with a statutory obligation is not automatic and is attracted only where the dealer acted deliberately in defiance of law, with contumacious or dishonest conduct, or in conscious disregard of the obligation. Here, the returns had been filed, assessment had been completed and tax had been accepted at a particular rate; the dispute arose only after the audit objection suggested a different rate of tax on the product sold. On these facts, the omission could not be treated as deliberate or dishonest so as to justify penal action.

Conclusion: Penalty was held to be unsustainable and the impugned orders were quashed to that extent in favour of the assessee.

---