Strict construction of sales tax penalty provision confirms liability arises when tax is charged, not only when collected.

A penal provision under the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act was construed strictly on its text: liability under section 15(4)(a) arose when tax was charged to purchasers, and actual collection was not required. The Court declined to read "collected" into the clause or rewrite the statute by supplying missing words. On the facts, financial stringency did not excuse repeated delay in remitting tax, prior belated payment was relevant to penalty, and interest under section 16(3) did not exclude penalty under section 15(4)(a). The penalty was therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether penalty under section 15(4)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 applies only when tax is both charged and collected from purchasers, or whether charging tax alone is sufficient. (ii) Whether the levy of penalty was liable to be interfered with on the facts of the case, including the plea of financial stringency and the contention based on interest under section 16(3) of the Act.

Issue (i): Whether penalty under section 15(4)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 applies only when tax is both charged and collected from purchasers, or whether charging tax alone is sufficient.

Analysis: The provision was construed on its plain language. The word used by the Legislature was "charged" and not "collected", and the Court declined to read additional words into a penal statute. The distinction between levy, charge and collection was treated as legally significant. The authorities cited on the meaning of "collection" were distinguished because the APGST provision did not penalise collection of tax but charging of tax. Strict construction of a penal provision did not permit supplying a casus omissus or rewriting the clause to make liability depend on actual collection from customers.

Conclusion: Charging tax alone was sufficient to attract section 15(4)(a); actual collection was not required.

Issue (ii): Whether the levy of penalty was liable to be interfered with on the facts of the case, including the plea of financial stringency and the contention based on interest under section 16(3) of the Act.

Analysis: The Court held that the plea of financial stringency did not justify the repeated delay in remitting tax, particularly where the dealer had charged tax to customers. The previous conduct of the dealer in belated payment for earlier months was a relevant factor in deciding whether penalty should be imposed. Interest under section 16(3) was held to be distinct from penalty and did not exclude imposition of penalty under section 15(4)(a). On the material before the authorities, no perversity or legal error was shown in the finding that penalty was warranted.

Conclusion: The penalty was justified and no interference was called for.

Final Conclusion: The tax revision cases failed, and the penalty imposed under section 15(4)(a) was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing penal provision uses the word "charged" and not "collected", the Court cannot read in additional words to restrict liability; charging tax to purchasers is enough to attract the fixed penalty prescribed by the statute.

---