JUDGMENT
B. Rai, J.
1. This writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the impugned orders, Annexures P1, P2 and P4 and calling for the relevant records from the respondents.
2. The petitioner-company has a subsidiary known as Hind Level Chemicals Limited (HICL) which was earlier known as Stepan Chemicals Limited (SCL). The petitioner-company is engaged inter alia in the manufacture of soaps and detergents. It manufactures Rin Detergent Powder under a processing agreement with M/s Amar Poly Fab (P) Ltd. at Majra, Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar, while SCL under a separate agreement manufactures Wheel Detergent Powder through a processing agreement with M/s Amar Poly Fab (P) Ltd. For the purpose of packing the soaps and detergents manufactured by them, plastic bags/pouches are purchased by the petitioner-company as well as SCL from M/s Hemant Plastics and Chemicals Ltd., Vadodara (Gujarat). The petitioner-company is registered under the Punjab Central Sales Tax, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) at Khanna, District Ludhiana under Registration No. 45360010. SCL is also registered under the Act at Rajpura, District Patiala and its Sales Tax Registration No. is 63330015.
3. On September 5, 1994 vehicle number CH-01-C-5968 was carrying plastic bags/pouches despatched by M/s Hemant Plastics and Chemicals Ltd. from Vadodara. The invoice covering those goods was in favour of the petitioner-company i.e., M/s Hindustan Lever Limited c/o Amar Poly Fab (Pvt.) Ltd., Majra. The said vehicle was detained at the Sales Tax Check Barrier, Lalru, District Patiala by the Sales Tax Authorities. On demand, the driver of the said vehicles produced goods receipt bearing No. 14644 dated September 2, 1994 of Singla Transport Pvt. Ltd. from Baroda to Majra (Punjab) and Invoice dated September 2, 1994 of M/s Hindustan Lever Limited c/o Amar Poly Fab (Pvt.) Ltd., Village Majra for Rs. 3,65,262 along with Form ST XXIV-A. Thus, all the documents were produced by the driver before the concerned Authorities. It is alleged by the petitioner that M/s Hemant Plastics and Chemicals Ltd. supplied 351000 plastic bags/pouches for Rin Detergent Powder by the said vehicle after payment of excise duty which had be recorded in the statutory records maintained by it. The said goods were despatched pursuant to Purchase Order No. 32091 dated August 4, 1994 of the petitioner-company. However inadvertently due to a clerical error at the point of despatch, i.e. Vadodara, the Sales Tax Registration No. of SCL was mentioned on the invoice instead of the Sales Tax Registration No. of the petitioner-company. It is pleaded that this inadvertent error occurred due to the fact that M/s Hemant Plastics and Chemicals Ltd. regularly supplied plastic bags/pouches to both the petitioner-company as well as to SCL through the same processing agency, namely, M/s Amar Poly Fab (P.) Ltd. The payments are made by the petitioner-company through Bank and are duly accounted for. It is further pleaded that SCL (now known as HLCL) is a subsidiary of the petitioner company inasmuch as the petitioner-company has substantive equity share holding in the said company.
4. Respondent No. 4 vide notice dated September 6, 1995 called upon the petitioner-company to show cause why action under section 14-B of the Act be not initiated. That Show Cause Notice was duly replied vide Annexure P1/A. The documentary evidence showing that SCL and the petitioner company have different registration numbers but due to inadvertence number of SCL was entered in the transport documents by M/s Hemant Plastic and Chemicals Ltd. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 passed a penalty order dated September 7, 1994 under section 14-B(7) of the Act, holding that the petitioner-company had contravened the provisions of section 14-B(2) and (4) of the Act and, as such, imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,09,500/- Under Section 14-B(7) of the Act. The amount of penalty had been deposited by the petitioner-company with the State Bank of Patiala, Dera Bassi Branch, vide TR No. 4, dated September 13, 1994. According to the petitioner, that penalty has illegally been imposed by respondent No. 4. In appeal, order Annexure I was challenged before respondent No. 3 under section 20 of the Act. That appeal, vide order dated January 23, 1995 Annexure P2 was dismissed by respondent No. 3 in an illegal and arbitrary manner. The order, Annexure P2, was challenged in appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh, under section 20(2) of the Act. Grounds of Appeal are Annexure P3. That appeal was, however, dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated April 30, 1996, Annexure P4, on wholly illegal, arbitrary and unjustified grounds. According to the petitioner-company, the orders Annexures P1, P2 and P4 are, therefore, liable to be quashed.
5. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Authorities while passing the order of penalty Annexure P1 and in dismissing the appeals vide orders Annexures P2 and P4, failed to appreciate the fact that Sales Tax Registration No. of SCL (now known as HLCL) is subsidiary of the petitioner company and it was inadvertently mentioned in the document accompanying the goods. According to him, it was brought to the notice of the Authorities detaining the vehicle carrying the goods that mistake occurred due to the fact that M/s Hemant Plastics and Chemicals Ltd. supplied large number of plastic bags/pouches to the petitioner-company as well as to SCL (now known as HLCL) through the same processing agency, namely, M/s Amar Poly Fab (P) Ltd. and there was absolutely no intention of the petitioner-company to evade payment of tax. According to the learned counsel, the Authorities concerned failed to take note of the fact that the vehicle was carrying the goods and the amount of excise duty had already been debited in books of account of the consignor firm which were duly produced before the respondents during the pendency of the case. It is submitted that the respondents should have appreciated that the transaction was a transaction in the normal course of business and the documents covering the goods in question were genuine in which all the necessary particulars were correctly recorded. The learned counsel went on to argue that the payment in respect of the consignment was received by M/s Hemant Plastics and Chemicals Ltd. through a Bank. The supply was made by M/s Hemant Plastics and Chemicals Ltd. under a regular purchase order, dated August 4. 1994 placed by the petitioner company. Once the payment was made through the Bank, there could neither be any attempt nor intention on the part of the petitioner-company to evade to tax especially when statutory declaration in Form ST XXIV-A was also furnished. It was vehemently argued that penalty of Rs. 1,09,500/- has been imposed in a very illegal and arbitrary manner without properly appreciating the documentary evidence and the factual position. According to the learned counsel the heavy penalty should not have been imposed on the petitioner-company merely on the ground that Sales Tax Registration No. 63330015 of SCL instead of HLCL was inadvertently recorded in the documents covering the goods. It was, therefore, urged that the orders Annexures P1, P2 and P4 be quashed.
6. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the averments made in the petition and the orders impugned we are of the opinion that this writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. While dealing with the appeal of the petitioner-company, the learned Presiding Officer of Sales Tax Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh, after going through the entire record produced before him, observed that Registration Certificate number in the State is computerised and the authorities are aware of the area locational numbers and as soon as the detaining authority took note of the mention of RC No. 63330015 (of Stepan Hhemicals Mohali) and that goods were going to Majra, Kharar with RC number of Hindustan Lever begin 45360010 (Khanna), the goods were rightly detained under section 14-B of the Act. A detailed enquiry was held in which it was found that despite claim of numerous deals with Hemant Plastics, there was no deal of the petitioner-company with Stepan Chemicals. There was only one deal with the appellant and that too in respect of the same purchase order as against numerous alleged deals having been effected between the petitioner-company and the Hemant Plastics and Chemicals Ltd. Apart from . wrong mentioning of RC Number, the ST XXIV-A Form covering the goods was found defective. The CST Number of the consignor was not mentioned therein. The Form was found incomplete inasmuch as the name of the transport company was not mentioned and was unsigned. The learned Tribunal observed that the claim of clerical error of wrong mentioning of RC is generally believable and it does happen that such typing errors do occur, but an adverse notice of this happening is always to be taken when other documents do not support the claim of the appellant. It is also observed that Hindustan Levers is a highly reputed company and in fact such a company should have supported their claim with detailed accounts, details for various transactions with Hemant Plastics both by it and Stepan Chemicals. It should have produced the purchase agreement with the consignor. The detailed correspondence on earlier despatches could have established beyond doubt that the above transaction was above-board, but no attempt was made by the petitioner-company to support the plea of inadvertent mistake and it was not impregnant with metis rea. Bank’s statement of earlier transactions and any proof that earlier transactions took place with both the firms and the payment was made through Bank, were not produced which should have been produced to substantiate the claim. The plea of the petitioner-company that account books were maintained in Delhi Office and as such those could not be produced, did not find favour with the concerned Authorities being feeble plea, and rightly so. If the account books were maintained in Delhi Office, possibly there could not be any difficulty with the petitioner-company having numerous sources at its command to produce the account books before the Authorities.
7. No explanation has been given by the petitioner as to why it did not produce the accounts and the details of the various other similar transactions to prove its plea of clerical error. It has also not given any explanation as to why ST XXIV A form was defective and why CST number of the consignor was not mentioned. We also find that the assessing authority, the appellate authority and the Tribunal have considered the entire material produced by the petitioner before them and they have given sound reasons for imposing and upholding the imposition of penalty and there is no error of law apparent on the face of them regarding interference by this Court. We cannot reappreciate the material produced by the petitioner before the assessing authority as the Court of first instance nor can we sit in appeal over the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the three authorities.
8. Thus there is no valid reason to interfere with the impugned orders. Hence the writ petition is dismissed.