R.M.Sahai, J. - (1.) Dissatisfied with the setting aside of penalty orders passed under Section 15-A(l)(g) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act for carrying on business without registration under Section 8-A in the assessment year 1973-74 to 1976-77 by the revising authority and the appellate authority, the Commissioner of Sales Tax has filed these revisions and raised an issue of wider impact of competency and jurisdiction of honour of penalty orders.
(2.) To hammer the point Sri V.D. Singh, the learned standing counsel, has compared Sub-clause (g) with various Sub-clauses and has highlighted the legislative intention of excluding mens rea from this clause thereby rendering an act of mere non-registration punishable per se. In order to appreciate this submission of the learned standing counsel material portions of Section 15-A are re-extracted below: 15-A. (1) If the assessing authority is satisfied that any dealer or other person (a) has, without reasonable cause, failed to furnish the return of his turnover or to furnish it within the time allowed and in the manner prescribed, or to deposit the tax due under this Act before furnishing the return or along with the return, as required under the provisions of this Act; or (b) ... (c) ... (d) ... (e) ... (f) ... (g) being liable for registration under this Act, carries on or continues to carry on business without obtaining registration or without furnishing the security demanded under Section 8-C;... it may, after such inquiry, if any, as it may deem necessary, direct that such dealer or person shall pay, by way of penalty, in addition to the tax, if any, payable by him, (i) in a case referred to in Clause (a), Clause (b) or Clause (e), a sum not less than ten per cent, but not exceeding twenty-five per cent of the tax due if the tax due is up to ten thousand rupees and fifty per cent of the tax due if the tax due is above ten thousand rupees; (ii) ... (iii) ... (iv) in a case referred to in Clause (g), a sum of rupees one hundred for each month or part thereof for the default during the first three months and rupees five hundred for every month or part thereof after the first three months during which the default continues.
(3.) Imposition of penalty under taxing statutes for defaults without element of mens rea is now firmly established. In R.S. Joshi, Sales Tax Officer v. Ajit Mills Ltd. 1979 UPTC 171 (SC), the Honourable Supreme Court while upholding the constitutional validity of forfeiture provision in the Gujarat Sales Tax Act observed : The classical view that 'no mens rea, no crime' has long ago been eroded and several laws in India and abroad, especially regarding economic crimes and departmental penalties, have created severe punishments even where the offences have been defined to exclude mens rea.;