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

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 599 · Decided: 26-08-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI, S. RANGANATHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

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. 
\ 
c 
On the basis of a survey conducted, the respondent, a. dealer in 
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. 
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) 
F 
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 
A 
B 
c 
600 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
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 
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]' 
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. 
F 
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. 
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 i

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.