Administrative fines for offences punishable with fine require express statutory authority; criminal court jurisdiction governs otherwise.

A fiscal provision stating that non-compliance is "punishable with fine" creates an offence triable by the competent criminal court under the General Clauses Act and CrPC framework. The statutory scheme did not confer power on the Commissioner or a delegate to impose that fine as a punishment. Accordingly, the administrative notices issued for failure to file stock statements online were held without jurisdiction and were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner or his delegate had jurisdiction to impose fine under Section 70(5) of the Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 for failure to comply with the notification requiring online filing of stock statements, or whether such fine could be imposed only by a criminal court.

Analysis: The expression "punishable with fine" in Section 70(5) was treated as creating an offence within the meaning of Section 3(38) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. On that basis, the offence was held triable in accordance with Section 26(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the competent criminal court. The statutory scheme did not confer power on the Commissioner or the delegate to impose the fine as a punishment.

Conclusion: The Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to impose the fine under Section 70(5), and the impugned notices were liable to be quashed. The issue was decided in favour of the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded and the penalty notices were set aside on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a fiscal provision makes non-compliance "punishable with fine", the power to punish lies with the competent criminal court unless the statute expressly confers such adjudicatory power on the administrative authority.

---