Revised return cannot defeat penalty after proceedings begin; Central Sales Tax evasion penalty upheld under general penalty provisions.

A revised return could not be used to cure a defective exemption claim where the statute required rectification to be made with the audited certificate, and the proviso barred acceptance once penalty proceedings had begun; the exemption was therefore not sustainable. Penalty for evasion on an inter-State sale was also upheld because Section 9(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act applies the State law's general provisions on offences, interest and penalties to tax under the Central Act, and the conduct did not fall within the limited offences under Sections 10 and 10A. The revision was rejected, and both the penalty and denial of exemption were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee could avoid penalty and retain exemption by filing a revised return after the audit report and after initiation of penalty proceedings; (ii) whether penalty for evasion on the inter-state sale could be sustained by applying the general penalty provisions under the State sales tax law in view of the Central Sales Tax Act.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee could avoid penalty and retain exemption by filing a revised return after the audit report and after initiation of penalty proceedings.

Analysis: The revised return had to be filed along with the audited certificate when the discrepancy in the annual return was noticed. The statutory scheme under Section 42 permitted rectification only in that manner, and the proviso barred acceptance of a revised return once penal action had already been initiated. On the facts, the audit report had been filed first, penalty proceedings followed, and only thereafter was the revised return submitted. The exemption under the notification was therefore wrongly claimed because the purchase tax condition was not satisfied.

Conclusion: The revised return was not validly filed so as to defeat the penalty or sustain the exemption claim, and this issue is decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty for evasion on the inter-state sale could be sustained by applying the general penalty provisions under the State sales tax law in view of the Central Sales Tax Act.

Analysis: Section 9(2A) of the Central Sales Tax Act attracted the provisions of the general sales tax law relating to offences, interest and penalties in respect of tax under the Central Act. The case was one of evasion of tax on inter-state sale by wrongly claiming exemption without satisfying its condition, and the offence did not fall within the limited offences under Sections 10 and 10A. The penalty imposed under the Central Sales Tax framework was therefore held to be proper.

Conclusion: The penalty was validly imposed, and this issue is decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revision was rejected, and the penalty and denial of exemption were upheld on the facts and statutory scheme.

Ratio Decidendi: A revised return cannot be accepted after initiation of penalty proceedings when the statute requires it to accompany the audited return, and penalty for evasion under the Central Sales Tax Act may be sustained through the general penalty provisions made applicable by Section 9(2A).

---