STATE OF U.P. versus DYER MEAKIN BREWERIES LTD.

Citation: [1973] 3 S.C.R. 649 · Decided: 08-03-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. HEGDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
649 
STATE OF U.P. 
v. 
DYER MEAKIN BREWERIES LTD. 
March 8, 1973 
[K. S. HEGDE, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.] 
C•ntral Sales Tax Act, 1956, Section 10-A-A&<es.ree registei·ed ar 
d•ar<r in Gaziabad-Penalty proceedings lnitiat<d against asseme-Sub-
S<qu•nt/y, assessee's registration transferred to Luck111)w-Sales Tax Officer 
had jurisdiction to impose penalty on assessee even after transfer of regis. 
tration. 
The assessee was registered as a dealer under the Central Sales Tax 
Act, 1956. at Ghaziabad. For the relevant asses•"K!'lt years, he 
was 
.Ssessed by the Tax Officer at Ghaz.iabad. The Saleo Tax Officer, Ghazia-
bad, sub5equently came to know that the assessee had misuse<! some of 
the 'C' Forms and, therefore, issued a penalty notice u/s 10-A of the Act 
on January 8, 1960. 
Durin11 the pendency of the penalty proceedings, 
the assessee transferred his registration to Lucknow. 
The Sales Tax 
Officer, Ghaziabad imposed the penalty on the aasessee for the Disuse of 
Form 'C'. At the instance of the assessee. the Revisional Authority uoder 
the Statute referred three questions of law to High Court under section 
11 (I) di the U.P. Sales Tax Act, the principal question being whether 
the Sales Tax Officer, Ghaziabad, had jurisdiction to impose penalty when 
the registration was transferred to Lucknow. 
The High Court answered 
the question against the State. 
On appeals by special leave, allowing· the appeals, 
HELD: Prima facie, the Sales Tax Officer, Ghaziabad was competent 
to levy the penalty on the assessee. 
Section 10-A definitely says that the 
authority who granted the certificate of registration to an assessee ii one 
of the authorities competent to levy penalty. Undoubtedly the Sales Tax 
Officer, Ghaziaba<l, was the authority 
who granted 
the certificate of 
registration to the assessee and that certificate was in force during the 
relevant assessment years. 
Even though after 28-3-1960, 'the date 
of 
transfer of registration, he ceased to be the authority competent to grant 
certificate of registration to the assessee he still had the competence to 
levy penalty on the assessee in view of the fact, that it was he who had 
granted certificate of registration to the asaessee. 
The levy of penalty is 
one of levying tax. 
If the Sales-tax Officer was competent to levy sales-
tax on the assessee in re.•pect of the relevant assessment years, he was 
equally competent to levy penalty on the asscssee in reapect of the offences 
committed during these years. [653 DJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTJON : 
Civil Appeals Nos. 1655 
and 1656 of 1970. 
Appeals bv special leave from !he judgmem: and order dated 
l st January 1970 of the Allahabad High Court in Sales Tax Refer-
ence Nos. 15 and 16 of 1968. 
H 
N. D. Karkhanis and 0. P. Rana, for the appellant. 
D. P. Singh, S. C. Agarwal, V. J. Francis and R. P. Singlt, 
for the respondent. 
65G 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1973} 3 S.C.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
HEGDE, J. These are appeals by Special Leave. They related 
to penalty proceeding. 1'.he assessee, M/s. Dyer Meakin B~es 
Ltd., .is canying on· busmess of mantifacture and sale of wmes, 
bear and fruit juices, etc. at Ghaziabad. 
The assessee was re-
gistered as a dealer under The Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 
(hereinafter referred to as the Act) a_t Ghaziabad. During the 
assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60, the assessee submitted its 
sales tax returns to the Sales Tax Officer at Ghaziabad and he was 
assessed by that Officer. 
Subsequently, the Sales· Tax Officer, 
Ghaziabad, came to know that the assessee had misused some ot 
the 'C' forms issued to it. According to his information, the 
assessee, by misusing the 'C' form, had purchased goods worth 
Rs. 11,754.62 P. in thi; assessment year 1958-59 and goods worth 
Rs. 2,68,242.38 P. in the assessment year 1959-60. Hence, the 
Sales Tax Officer, Ghaziabad, issued to the assessee a notice on 
January 8, 1960 calling upon him to show cause why he should 
not impose penalty on him under Section 10-A of the Act. The 
assessee did not give any explanation. Some time thereafter, the 
assessee made an aP.Plication praying for condonation of his de-
fault, alleging that the defaults were committed due to ignorance 
of law. The Sales Tax Officer did not accept that explanation. 
The Sales Tax Officer, Ghaziabad again issued a notice to the 
assessee on October 31, 1960 requiring it to show cause why it 
should no

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