Special penalty provisions bar duplicate penalty on the same facts when mandatory reassessment penalty already applies.

A mandatory penalty under section 17(5A) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, imposed on reopening a simplified assessment where tax was found short-paid, exhausts penal action for the same factual default. The special provision requires payment of the tax difference plus thrice that amount as penalty and leaves no discretion to the authority. A further penalty under section 45A, a general penal provision for defaults such as false accounts or non-compliance with notices, is not sustainable when it rests on the same ingredients already covered by section 17(5A). The special provision prevails over the general provision.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after penalty had been imposed under section 17(5A) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act on reopening of an assessment completed under section 17(4), a further penalty under section 45A of the same Act could be sustained on the same facts and ingredients.

Analysis: Section 17(5A) applies to a dealer who opts for simplified assessment under section 17(4) and, on reopening, is found to have paid less tax than what was finally payable. In such a case the statute mandates payment of the tax difference together with thrice that difference as penalty, leaving no discretion to the authority. Section 45A, on the other hand, is a general penal provision covering several defaults, including failure to maintain true and complete accounts and failure to comply with notices or summons, and its invocation depends upon satisfaction of the authority, with scope for discretion and consideration of mens rea. The defaults relied on for section 45A were the very same factual ingredients that had already resulted in reassessment and mandatory penalty under section 17(5A). Once the special and more stringent penalty under section 17(5A) had been imposed and satisfied, the same conduct could not again be visited with penalty under section 45A. The special provision was held to prevail over the general provision.

Conclusion: Further penalty under section 45A for the same offence or ingredients was not sustainable after imposition of penalty under section 17(5A).

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the penalty orders under section 45A, to the extent challenged, were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statutory provision provides a mandatory penalty for a defined default and that penalty is imposed for the same factual ingredients, a further penalty under a general provision for the same conduct is impermissible.

---