JUDGMENT
Thanikkachalam, J.
1. The department is the petitioner herein. These tax cases relate to the levy of penalty under section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The assessing officer found that the assessee purchased paper during the assessment years 1977-78, 1974-75 to 1976-77 from outside the State by issuing “C” forms. The registration certificate issued to the assessee did not include paper. Hence, the assessing officer held that the purchase of paper by issue of “C” form was unauthorised and that the assessee is liable to penalty under section 10-A of the Act for contravening section 10(c) of the Act. Accordingly for the assessment years 1977-78, 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77, the penalty of Rs. 32,000, Rs. 862, Rs. 10,165 and Rs. 19,982 were levied respectively. According to the assessee, it had already applied to the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Ratan Bazar, Madras, by letter dated April 30, 1974, for the inclusion of paper in its registration certificate and on the bona fide belief that the paper could have been included in the registration certificate, the assessee purchased the paper by using “C” forms. Therefore, according to the assessee there was no false representation on its behalf, warranting penalty under section 10(c) of the Act. However, the penalty levied by the assessing officer was confirmed by the appellate Assistant Commissioner on appeal in all the assessment years under consideration. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeals before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that the letter dated April 30, 1974, sent by the assessee for the inclusion of paper in the registration certificate was received by the office of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and that therefore the assessee would have had a reasonable belief that the assessee can purchase paper by using the “C” forms. Accordingly, the penalty levied in all the assessment years under consideration were cancelled.
2. It is against the common order passed by the Tribunal in all the assessment years under consideration the department has come forward with these cases before this Court.
3. Learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) submitted that the Tribunal was not correct in deleting the penalty levied by the authorities below for the contravention of the provisions under section 10(c) of the Act. She further submitted that it was clearly established that the alleged letter dated April 30, 1974, is not a genuine letter and it was not received by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer’s office at Ratan Bazar, Madras, as alleged by the assessee. The said person Aslam Basha was not authorised to receive any letter on behalf of the Joint Commercial Tax Officer or the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer in the Ratan Bazar office. The signature contained in the said letter does not belong to the said Aslam Basha. It remains to be seen that even though according to the assessee, a letter for the inclusion of paper was sent on April 30, 1974, another letter, dated April 7, 1978 was also sent by the assessee for the inclusion of papers in the registration certificate. According to learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) if the letter dated April 30, 1974, was sent for the purpose of inclusion of papers in the registration certificate, what necessitated the assessee to send a subsequent letter for the inclusion of paper in the registration certificate on April 7, 1978, nearly after four years. The learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) further submitted that the fact that the assessee sent a letter for he inclusion of paper in the registration certificate would go to show that the assessee could not have entertained a bona fide belief, while purchasing the paper by issue of “C” forms. For these reasons, it was submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal, in cancelling the penalty is not sustained.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the assessee while supporting the order passed by the Tribunal submitted that letter dated April 30, 1974, sent by the assessee, requesting to include the paper in the registration certificate is a genuine letter. The said letter was received by Aslam Basha, who was authorised to receive the letters on behalf of the Joint Commercial Tax Officer and Deputy Commercial Tax Officer in Ratan Bazar office, Madras. The signature in that letter and the other signatures contained in the material papers tally with each other. There is no office instruction to Aslam Basha not to receive any letter on behalf of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and the Joint Commercial Tax Officer.
5. The Tribunal is the highest fact-finding authority. On consideration of the entire facts, arising in this case, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the letter dated April 30, 1974, was a genuine letter and that it was received by the Office of the Deputy Commercial Tax officer, Ratan Bazar, Madras. Hence, the assessee could have entertained a bona fide belief that it can purchase the papers by using “C” forms. It was further submitted that the alleged letter, dated April 7, 1978, was no brought to the notice of the Tribunal. No argument was also advanced by the said representative at this stage. Therefore no attention can be bestowed on the letter dated April 7, 1978.
6. We have heard the rival submissions. We have already set out the facts in detail. The assessee purchased the papers outside the State by using “C” forms in all the assessment years under consideration. According to the department, the registration certificate does not include paper. No doubt, in the registration certificate, no mention was made about the paper. According to the assessee, he sent a letter dated April 30, 1974, addressed to the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Ratan Bazar, Madras, requesting permission to include paper in the registration certificate. This letter was stated to have been handed over to one Aslam Basha, who is the Sales Tax Collection Inspector. In he said letter, there is a signature for having received the same. But there is no date in the said letter. The point that arises for consideration is whether the letter dated April 30, 1974, sent by the assessee is a genuine letter or not and whether the said letter was received by the office of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Ratan Bazar, Madras. It was pointed out that the letters addressed to the abovesaid office were received by the staff in the said office. The letter dated April 30, 1974, was said to have been received by Aslam Basha. According to the department, the said Aslam Basha was not authorised to receive any letters on behalf of the office. But the materials produced would go to show that the said Aslam Basha himself received several letters sent to Ratan Bazar office. There is also no office order to Aslam Basha not to receive any letter on behalf of the office. The department raised a doubt with regard to the signature contained in the letter. According to the department, the signature contained in the letter dated April 30, 1974, is not the signature of Aslam Basha. However, the Tribunal obtained ten signatures from Aslam Basha and compared the same with the signature in the letter dated April 30, 1974. According to the Tribunal the signatures obtained in the court and the signature contained in the letter dated April 30, 1974, tally with each other. Therefore, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee would have entertained a bona fide belief in purchasing the paper by using the “C” forms. Hence, there is no false representation, as alleged by the department, in this case according to the Tribunal.
7. Learned Addition Government Pleader (Taxes) also pointed out that there is another letter dated April 7, 1978, sent by the assessee in the file, requesting the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer to include paper in the registration certificate and that if there was already a letter dated April 30, 1974, for the same request what is the necessity for writing another letter dated April 7, 1978, nearly after four years. Therefore, according to learned Additional Government Pleader, the letter dated April 30, 1974, would not be a genuine one. It remains to be seen that the letter dated April 7, 1978, was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal. Therefore, we cannot attach weight to such matters.
8. On behalf of the assessee, it was also submitted that even though, Aslam Basha was very much available, he was not examined by the department. It remains to be seen that no material was produced by the department to dispute the signature of Aslam Basha contained in the letter dated April 30, 1974. Thus, the Tribunal, which is the highest fact-finding authority, on the material available on record came to the conclusion that the letter dated April 30, 1974, is a genuine letter and that the signature contained therein with such finding, which is based on facts. In the notification issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu (Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department), dated January 24, 1984 in G.O. Ms. No. 61 in the matter of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, inter-State purchase of goods against form “C” where goods were not included in the the registration certificate the Government of Tamil Nadu states as hereunder :
“The Government after considering the suggestion of the CCT and also taking into consideration of a number of representations to Government for stay for huge amounts of penalty under the the CST Act for such technical violation, have decided that the CCT may issue instructions to the A.Os. to take a lenient view wherever a dealer purchased goods on the basis of “C” forms without including them in the CST registration certificate either inadvertently or ignorantly, so as to avoid a lot of complaints of harassment in the case of selected dealers and complaints of corruption also provided the dealer is eligible to have been goods included in the registration certificate.”
Thus, considering the facts arising in this case in the light of the aforesaid notification we hold that there is no infirmity in the order passed passed by the Tribunal in deleting the penalties levied under section 10-A of the Act.
9. Accordingly, the tax cases are dismissed. No costs.
10. Petitions dismissed.