Business Consultancy and Marketing vs State of Tamil Nadu

Dr. A.S. Anand, C.J.—The assessees are in revision against the order of the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Main Bench, Madras, dated October 1, 1982. The controversy relates to the levy of penalty u/s 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act for an offence committed u/s 10(b) of the Act.

The facts are not in dispute. The assessees have a certificate of registration. That certificate of registration did not authorise the assessees to purchase polythene bags, chloric acids and chemicals by use of C form declarations on concessional rate of tax. Despite that factual position, the assessees got those articles by using "C" form declarations. The statutory authorities including the Tribunal founds that the assessees had committed an offence u/s 10(b) of the Act, as by using the "C" form declarations, they purchased articles which were not included in the certificate of registration on concessional rate of tax. The authorities negatived the plea of the assessees that they had acted bona fide.

Appearing before us, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Srikanth, submits that the assessees bona fide believed that the polythene bags, etc., could be purchased by them by the use of "C" forms, and, therefore, the levy of penalty was not called for. A similar plea had been raised before the statutory authorities including the Tribunal. It was found that the plea of bona fide set out by the assessees was not merited. The very fact that later on these very items, i.e., polythene bags, chloric acids and chemicals got included in the certificate of registration would go to show that the assessees knew that their certificate of registration did not authorise them the purchase of those articles by use of "C" form declarations at the relevant time. Since the assessees had misused form "C", they had rendered themselves liable u/s 10(b) of the Act, and consequently, the levy of penalty u/s 10-A of the Act was justified. The Tribunal has already reduced the quantum of penalty and we see no reason to show any further indulgence. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any cause to interfere with the orders of the statutory authorities in exercise of our revisional powers. The tax revision case, therefore, fails and is dismissed. No costs.

Petition dismissed.