TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1977 (5) TMI 72
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to it on merits and if any question or questions of law is/are found to arise out of its order, that question or those questions may be referred to this court after drawing up a proper statement of the case. Since the matter was not free from difficulty, the parties are left to bear their own costs." In pursuance thereto, the Tribunal rather curiously has referred as many as 11 questions for determination by its referring order dated 16th October, 1973. The facts are not in dispute and lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner-firm of Messrs. Charanjit Lal Des Raj is carrying on business in kerosene oil and lubricants and is a registered dealer both under the Charanjit Lal Des Raj v. Sales Tax Tribunal, Union Territory, Chandigarh [197....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by its order dated 27th June, 1972, the Tribunal held that the petition was not competent. The petitioner then moved this court in Sales Tax Case No. 3 of 1972, mentioned earlier and that is how the matter is now again before us. It is apparent from the referring order of the Tribunal dated 16th October, 1973, that it has slightly misapprehended the import of the earlier order of the High Court in Sales Tax Case No. 3 of 1972. Therein the Bench had obviously directed that if any question or questions of law were found to arise then these may be referred to the court after drawing up a proper statement of the case. The Tribunal, however, has construed this direction as if it was a mandamus requiring it to forward all the eleven questions ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, for which a penalty can be imposed upon the purchasing dealer of the Union Territory of Chandigarh under section 10A of the said Act? (3) Whether the Assessing Authority (Sales Tax), Union Territory, Chandigarh, has jurisdiction to impose any penalty under section 10A of the said Act on a registered dealer of the Union Territory of Chandigarh who has committed a breach of the conditions of the said notification issued by the Haryana Government? We propose to examine questions Nos. (1) and (2) together because the central points at issue in both of them are similar, if not identical. To put things in the correct perspective, it is both desirable and indeed necessary to have a bird's eye view of the relevan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act then elucidates the offences which may be punishable with simple imprisonment extending to six months or with fine or with both. Clause (d) of section 10 of the Central Sales Tax Act, which is attracted in the present case, provides that if any person after purchasing any goods for any of the purposes specified in clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 8 fails, without reasonable excuse, to make use of the goods for any such purpose, he shall become liable to imprisonment or fine under this provision. In section 10A of the Act, which has been inserted with effect from 1st October, 1958, it is provided that the competent authority may in lieu of prosecution for an offence committed under the Act impose a penalty for a sum not exceedin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... course of inter-State trade or commerce sells the same to a registered dealer other than the Government. In the eye of law, therefore, the goods purchased by the petitioner fell within section 8(3)(b) of the Act and a condition was imposed thereupon regarding the use to which these goods were to be put. The petitioner plainly violated the purposes for which the purchase had been made and the benefit of the exemption secured. His conduct, therefore, would come plainly within the relevant words of the statute which may now be quoted in extenso: "10. Penalties.-If any person-..... (d) after purchasing any goods for any of the purposes specified in clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 8 fails, without reasonable excuse, to make use o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the State of Haryana and by violating the terms thereof carried the goods to the State of Punjab via Chandigarh without the payment of any tax whatsoever. The infraction and the violation of the law has patently been committed by the petitioner and one fails to see how and for what the innocent selling dealer in Haryana (who had sold the goods against the prescribed declaration duly given by the petitioner) could be charged with a criminal offence. An equally untenable contention raised on behalf of the petitioner then is that the infraction of the law here would not be section 8(3)(b) of the Act, but of sub-section (5) thereof. I am wholly unable to agree. Sub-section (5) of section 8 of the Act only clothes the State Government wit....