COMMISSIONER, SALES TAX, U.P. LUCKNOWversusANOOP WINES, KHULDABAD, ALLAHABAD

        COMMISSIONER, SALES TAX, U.P. LUCKNOW                                A
                                    v.
         ANOOP WINES, KHULDABAD, ALLAHABAD

                          AUGUST 26, 1988

 [SABYASACHI MUKHARJI ANDS. RANGANATHAN, JJ.]                                B

       Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Act, 1948/Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax Rules,
1948: Sections 8A(l)(c) and 15A(l)(g)-Registration of dealer-
Failure to register-Imposition of penalty without notice-Whether
justified.
                \
      On the basis of a survey conducted, the respondent, a. dealer in
                                                                             c
foreign liqnor was directed to get itself registered for 1977-78 as a
dealer. But this direction was not complied with. Such a direction in
respect of 1976-77 was also not complied with. The Sales Tax Officer
imposed a penalty of Rs.4,500 for non-registration under Section
15A(l)(g) of the Act. The respondent went on appeal before the               D
Assistant Commissioner (Judicial) who dismissed the appeal. There-
after it preferred a revision before the Additional Judge (Revision)
which was subsequently transferred to the Sales Tax Tribunal. The
Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The respondent challenged the Tri-
bunal's order, before the High Court by way of revision. Allowing the
revision, the High Court held that the respondent was not under the          E
legal obligation to seek registration and so the question of penalty under
Section lSA(l)(g) of the Act did not arise.

      This appeal, by special leave is against the aforesaid decision of
the High Conrt.
                                                                             F
      Dismissing the appeal,

      HELD: 1.1 Withont calling upon the assessee 'or the dealer to
explain its claim on Section 8-A(l)(c) the imposition of the penalty
which was sought to be sustained and maintained under clause (d)
of Section 8-A(l) of the Act cannot be sustained by reference to clause      G
(c). l603A~Bl    -                               '

      1.2 Clanse (d) of Section 8-A(l) has no application to the facts of
the present case. The dealer did not commence busin~ss during the
course of the assessment year and as such he was not 'registrable in
terms of that section. Clause (d) of'the said section refers to a dealer     H
                                    599
    600         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A   who has commenced business during the course of an assessment year.
    It is abundantly clear that the assessee had started the business in the
    preceding year and is not the one who commenced his business during
    the course of the assessment year 1977-78. Therefore, clause (d) is inap·
    plicable to the assessee. The contention that the order for the imposition
    of penalty could and should have been justified on clause (c) of Section
B   8-A(l) being a dealer who would, but for any exemption made or
    granted under the Act, be liable to pay tax thereunder provided his
    actual or estimated turnover for the assessment year is not less than
    fifty thousand rupees, was never agitated before the authorities below.
    The assessee or the dealer never had any occasion to meet this case. It is
    not a question of sustaining jurisdiction by reference to a wrong section,
    but imposition of penalty without notice. [6020-H; 603A]'
c
        L. Hazari Mal Kuthia/a v. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle,
    Ambala Cantt. andAnr., [1961] 41I.T.R.12 p. 20, distinguished.

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition
D   (Civil) No. 14274 of 1985.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 7.2.85 of the Allahabad
    High Court in Sales Tax Revision No. 206/ 1984.

          A.K. Srivastava for the Petitioner.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J, This is a petition for leave to
    appeal against the decision of the High Court of Allahabad, dated 7th
    February, 1985.
F
          It is a matter dealing with sales-tax. The dealer commenced busi-
    ness of foreign liquor from 1st May, 1976. From the record, it appears
    that a survey was made on 7th August, 1976 and the respondent was
    directed to get itself registered for 1977-78 as a dealer. It did not. This
    was so inspite of having been directed to do ·SO in respect of 1976-77
G   and, as such, penalty was imposed. The Sales Tax Officer by his order
    dated 16th December, 1977 imposed penalty of Rs.4,500 for non-
    registration under section !5A(i)(g) of the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax
    Act, 1948 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). Section !SA empowers the
    assessing authority, if satisfied, that any dealer had not done certain
    things as contained in the various sub-clauses of sub-section ( 1) therein
H   stated it would be liable to penalty. The dealer is liable if he fails to
.,



              COMMR. SALES TAX v. ANOOP WINES [MUKHARJI, J.I               601

     obtain transit pass or to deliver the same as provided in section 28-B of
                                                                                A
     the Act. It is on this score, that is to say, failure to obtain or deliver
     ~ransit pass that the dealer was found guilty and was penalised.
     Against the aforesaid order, the respondent-dealer filed an appeal
     before the Assistant Commissioner (J'1dicial) Sales Tax; Allahabad
     Range, Allahabad. The said Assistant Commissioner by his order
     dated 3 lst March, 1980 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order B
     of the Sales Tax Officer. Aggrieved thereby the· dealer preferred a
     revision before the Additional Judge (Revisions) Sales Tax, which was
     subsequently transferred to the Sales Tax Tribunal, Allahabad Bench,
     Allahabad. The Sales Tax Tribunal by its order dated 27th February,
     1984 dismissed the appeal of the dealer and confirmed the _or<ler of the
     Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Sales Tax. Aggrieved thereby the· C
     assessee challenged the same ·in the High Court by way of ·revision.
     The High Court in the impugned judgment allowed t.he revision. The
     High Court noted the contention of the assessee that ft was not under
     the legal obligation to seek registration and therefore, the question of
     any penalty under sectiiori 15A(l)(g) of the Act did not arise.
                                                                                D
           In this connection it is relevant to refer to Section SA of the Act.
     Section SA so far as material for our present purpose provides as
     follows:

                 "SA. Registration of dealers and realization of tax by           E
                 dealers: (l)(a) Every dealer who sells any goods imported
                 by him from outside Uttar Pradesh the turnover whereof is
                 liable to tax under sub-section (1) of section 3-A; and

                       (b) every dealer who is liable to pay tax under any
                                                                                  F
                 oth7r provision of this Act; and

                       (c) every dealer who would, but for any exemption
                 made or granted under this Act, be liable to pay tax there-
                 under, provided his actual or estimated turnover for the
                 assessment year is not less than fifty. thousand 'rupees in
                 the case of manuracturers and one lakh rupees in the case        G
                 of other dealers or such large amount as may be notified
                 under sub-section (2) of section 3; and            ···

                     . (d) every dealer commencing business during the
                 course of an assessment. year whose average monthly
                                                                                  H
    602         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

                estimated turnover for the remainder of the year, or whose
A               actual turnover in any month during the aforesaid period,
                is not less than one-twelfth of fifty thousand rupees in the
                case of manufacturers and one lakh rupees in the case of
                other dealers or of such larger amount as may be notified
                under sub-section (2) of section 3; shall apply for registra-
B               tion or renewal, as the case may be to the assessing autho-
                rity in such form, in such manner and within such period as
                may be prescribed. The application for registration or
                renewal shall, as from the assessment year 1978-79, be
                made for a period of three assessment years and the appli-
                cations for subsequent renewals shall be made for every
                three years hereinafter referred to as the triennial
c               renewal:''

          We are not, in the instant case, concerned with the different
    provisos and the subsequent clauses. It appears that clause (d) has no
    application to the facts of this case. The dealer indeed in this case did
D   not commence business during the course of the assessment year and
    as such he was not registrable in terms of that section. Clause (d) of the
    said section refers to a dealer who has commenced business during the
    course of an assessment year. It is abundantly clear in this case that the
    assessee had started his business in the preceding year and is not the
    one who commenced his business during the course of the assessment
E   year 1977-78, therefore; clause (d) is in_applicable to the assessee. The
    High Court noted that he is not said to have been covered by al)y other
    clause of sub-section (1) of section SA. That is the parameter within
    which the matter was canvassed before the authorities below. Counsel
    for the revenue,_ however, sought to urge before us that the order for
    the imposition of penalty could have been and should have been
F   justified on clause (c) of section 8-A(l) being a dealer who would, but
    for any exemption made or granted under the Act, be liable to pay tax
    thereunder, provided his actual or estimated turnover for the assess-
    ment year is not less than fifty thousand rupees. This point was never
    agitated before the authorities below. The assessee or the dealer had
    never any occasion to meet this case. It is not a question of sustaining
G   jurisdiction by refe~ence to a wrong section as was done in the case of
    L. Hazari Mal Kuthiala v. Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Amba/a
    Cantt. and Anr., [1961] 41 LT.R. 12 at page 20 where this Court held
    that if a particular action is valid under one section, it cannot be
    rendered invalid because reference was made to another section, and
    it makes no difference if the two empowering provisions are in the
H   same statute. But this -principle will have no application where in a
         COMMR. SALES TAX      v: ANOOP WINES [MUKHARJI, J.I         603

penal action no notice was given or resort to such a provision was made
                                                                            A
to the delinquent or ihe offending party.

      In that view of th-e mauer, we are of the opinion that without.
calling upon the assessee or the dealer to explain its claim on section
8-A(l)(c) the imposition of ihe penalty which was sought to be·
sustained and maintained under clause (d) of section 8-A( !) of the Act     B
cannot be sustain.ed in this case by reference to Clause (c).

      In the premises, the High Court was right in the view it took. The
petition raises no substantial question of law which requires looking
into or interference by this Court. The petition, therefore, fails and is
dismissed accordingly.
                                                                            c
G.N ..                                               Petition dismissed.