Section 188:

188. Inhuman treatment – Proportionally – Minimum penalty—The appellant was charged with the offence of failing to pay tax contrary to sections 55 (c) and 60 (3) (a) of the Value Added Tax Act (“the Act”). Pursuant to section 60 (3) (a) of the Act, the fine that could be imposed by the Court was one of 200,000 rupees’ or treble the amount of tax involved, whichever was the higher. The appellant pleaded guilty to the charge and the Magistrate found he had no alternative other than to sentence him to pay a fine of 200,000 rupees. One of the grounds of appeal was that the penalty was imposed under a law which violated the principle of proportionality in relation to the sentencing power of a Court of law, and was therefore in breach of sections 3, 5 and 7 of the Constitution. HELD section 7 of the Constitution incorporates in it the principle of proportionality of the sentence provided by law with the seriousness of the offence. Section 60 (3) (a) (ii) of the Act which provides for a sentence of “treble the amount of tax involved” cannot be said to infringe the proportionality of sentence principle. Section 60 (3) (a) (i) of the Act, in so far as it provides for a minimum sentence of 200,000 rupees’ fine, is in breach of section 7 of the Constitution. The fine imposed by the trial Court was substituted by a fine of 106,800 rupees representing three times the value of the tax pursuant to section 60 (3) (a) (ii) of the Act. Pandoo v State (2006).