Statutory sales tax penalty and payment appropriation rules sustain revision-based levy where the 25% threshold is exceeded.

Penalty under section 45(6) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act is treated as a statutory consequence where the tax differential exceeds the prescribed 25% threshold, so an omission by the assessing authority can be corrected in revision under section 67. The text also states that, for applying section 47(4B), a dealer's payment must be appropriated first towards interest, then penalty, and only thereafter towards tax. On that basis, the authorities' computation was upheld because the adjusted tax difference exceeded 25% of the amount paid, sustaining the penalty.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether penalty under section 45(6) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act could be imposed in revision for the first time when the assessing authority had not levied it; (ii) Whether, for determining the 25% threshold under section 45(5), amounts paid by the dealer had to be adjusted first against tax or first against interest under section 47(4B).

Issue (i): Whether penalty under section 45(6) of the Gujarat Sales Tax Act could be imposed in revision for the first time when the assessing authority had not levied it.

Analysis: Penalty under section 45(6) was held to be a statutory and automatic consequence of the difference between tax paid and tax payable where the difference exceeded 25% of the tax so paid. The omission of the assessing authority to levy such penalty was treated as an error that could be corrected in revision under section 67. The distinction drawn from cases dealing with other penalty provisions was rejected because section 45(6) was found to be integral to the assessment process, unlike independent penalty proceedings under other clauses.

Conclusion: The revisional authority was competent to impose penalty under section 45(6), and the challenge to jurisdiction failed.

Issue (ii): Whether, for determining the 25% threshold under section 45(5), amounts paid by the dealer had to be adjusted first against tax or first against interest under section 47(4B).

Analysis: Section 47(4B) was applied to hold that where the dealer's payment was less than the aggregate of tax, penalty and interest, the payment must first be appropriated towards interest, then penalty, and only thereafter towards tax. On that basis, after adjusting the interest component, the difference between tax payable and tax already paid exceeded 25% of the amount paid, attracting section 45(6).

Conclusion: The appropriation made by the authorities was correct and the penalty under section 45(6) was rightly sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in its entirety, and the levy of penalty was upheld on both jurisdictional and computational grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory penalty that follows automatically once the prescribed tax differential exists may be imposed in revision if the assessing authority omitted it, and the dealer's payment must be appropriated in the statutory order of interest, penalty, and tax while testing the 25% threshold.

---