TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (8) TMI 499
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....81 dated May 28, 1981 and thereby restoring the order of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Palayamkottai in his proceedings in CST No. 9672/77-78 dated December 8, 1980. 2.. Thiru K.S. Raman, proprietor, M/s. Hufdozers, having his place of business at No. 1, Bungalow, Shankar Nagar, Tirunelveli, is a registered dealer under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (for short, "the CST Act"). He applied for registration on January 30, 1978 to purchase and use bulldozers, tractors and other spares for the machineries for removal of limestones and other minerals from earth. The application so made, was forwarded with the certificate of registration in form "B" by the competent authorities on January 31, 1978. 3.. (a) The assessee-dealer, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and the said tractors for quarrying or mining limestones for the said lime products for an agreed remuneration. All these aspects of the matter, we are able to cull out from the files produced for our perusal and consideration. 4.. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Palayamkottai, issued a notice dated May 29,11979 to the assessee-dealer, requiring him to show cause as to why he should not be mulcted with liability of penalty under section 10-A of the CST Act in lieu of prosecution for infraction or violation of section 10(d) of the said Act. In the said notice, he also quantified the penalty in a sum of Rs. 68,457 equal to one and half times the tax, which would have been levied in respect of the sales made to him. 5.. To the notice ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt Commissioner II, Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Madras-5, giving rise to the present action. 8.. From the pith and submission of Mr. Srikanth, learned counsel, representing Mr. C. Venkat Raman, learned counsel appearing for the assesseedealer and Mr. S. Sudarsanani, learned Government Advocate (Taxes), representing the Revenue, the question, as below, emerges for consideration: Whether the assessee-dealer, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, after purchasing the buildozers and the tractors for the purposes for which he was authorised to purchase, failed without reasonable excuse, to make use of them for any such purpose? 9.. There is no pale of controversy that the assessee-dealer commenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her concerns in order to avoid such costly equipments being spoilt or depreciated in value any further. This is the sort of excuse the assessee-dealer would offer for putting the equipments he purchased for a different user. 12.. Section 10(d) which is relevant for the present purpose reads as under: "10. Penalties.-If any person,- (a) to (c) ...................... (d) after purchasing any goods for any of the purposes specified in clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (3) of section 8 fails, without any reasonable excuse, to make use of the goods for any such purpose; (e) and (f) ................. he shall be punishable with simple imprisonment, which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both; a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(2) of section 8 in respect of the sale to him of the goods, if the sale had been a sale failing within that sub-section: Provided that no prosecution for an offence under section 10 shall be instituted in respect of the same facts on which a penalty has been imposed under this section." 16.. In the case on hand, the penalty, which had been quantified in a specific sum by the assessing officer and set aside by the appellate authority, had been restored by the Joint Commissioner 11, Office of the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Chepauk, Madras-5. While doing so, the said Joint Commissioner II, did not at all consider the question of the existence or otherwise of any reasonable excuse for the user of the equipments purchased by the as....