Packing materials under Form XVII were not eligible for concessional tax before the statutory amendment; penalty followed, but the quantum was reduced.

Packing materials purchased for use in vanaspathi packing were not eligible for concessional tax under Form XVII during the assessment years before the 12 March 1993 amendment to section 3(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959; the tin containers were treated as packing goods rather than manufacturing inputs, so concessional treatment was denied. Breach of the statutory condition attached to that concession attracted penalty under section 23, so penal liability was upheld. However, the penalty ceiling under section 23 limited the levy, and the quantum was reduced from the higher percentage imposed below to 50%.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the purchase of tin containers for packing purposes during the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93 was eligible for concessional rate of tax at 3% against Form XVII declaration under section 3(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959; (ii) whether penalty was leviable for violation of section 3(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959; (iii) whether the penalty quantum of 150% imposed by the assessing officer, later reduced to 100% by the appellate authority and affirmed by the Tribunal, was justified.

Issue (i): whether the purchase of tin containers for packing purposes during the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93 was eligible for concessional rate of tax at 3% against Form XVII declaration under section 3(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.

Analysis: The relevant assessments related to a period prior to the amendment of section 3(3) with effect from 12.03.1993. Before that amendment, packing materials were not included within the class of goods eligible for concessional rate against Form XVII declaration. On the facts found by the authorities, the tin containers were purchased for packing vanaspathi and there was no concrete material to show that they were used as part of the manufacturing activity itself. The authorities below therefore treated the containers as packing materials and denied the concessional treatment.

Conclusion: The issue is answered against the assessee. The denial of concessional rate of tax is sustained.

Issue (ii): whether penalty was leviable for violation of section 3(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959.

Analysis: Once the claim to concessional tax under section 3(3) failed, the purchase of packing materials against Form XVII amounted to a breach of the statutory condition attached to the concession. The Tribunal's view that such contravention attracted penalty under section 23 was accepted, and no legal infirmity was found in the finding that the violation warranted penal consequences.

Conclusion: The issue is answered against the assessee. Penalty was held to be leviable.

Issue (iii): whether the penalty quantum of 150% imposed by the assessing officer, later reduced to 100% by the appellate authority and affirmed by the Tribunal, was justified.

Analysis: Section 23 permits a penalty not exceeding one and a half times the tax payable, and the appellate authority had reduced the levy from the maximum of 150% to 100%. In the facts of the case, the Court found the maximum levy to be on the higher side and further reduced the penalty to 50%.

Conclusion: The issue is answered in favour of the assessee. The penalty quantum was reduced to 50%.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were disposed of by modifying the impugned order only on the question of penalty quantum, while sustaining the denial of concessional tax and the finding of penal liability.

Ratio Decidendi: Prior to the statutory amendment including packing materials, goods purchased for packing purposes do not qualify for concessional tax under section 3(3) of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959, and penalty may follow for breach of the statutory condition, subject to the ceiling prescribed by section 23.

---