Mandatory statutory purchase of seized goods cannot be shifted personally to an officer absent statutory authority.

Under section 83 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, notice and the absence of any stay triggered a mandatory statutory purchase mechanism: the dealer remained bound to sell the seized goods, and the authority was required to pay the purchase price, subject only to adjustment of any penalty-related amount pending appeal. Liability for that purchase price was treated as that of the State, so a direction to recover it personally from the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer was unsustainable and was set aside. Once payment was directed, the section 83 dispute became infructuous, while the penalty-related challenge under section 78(5) continued.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, after a notice under section 83 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 was issued and there was no stay of the penalty order, the authority was under a mandatory obligation to purchase the seized goods and make payment of the purchase price; (ii) whether the State could be permitted to recover the purchase price personally from the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer; and (iii) whether the pending appeal concerning section 83 survived after the direction to make payment.

Issue (i): Whether, after a notice under section 83 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 was issued and there was no stay of the penalty order, the authority was under a mandatory obligation to purchase the seized goods and make payment of the purchase price.

Analysis: The notice under section 83(1) triggered the statutory mechanism under section 83(2). In the absence of any stay of the order under appeal, the dealer was bound to sell the goods to the authority and the authority correspondingly had a mandatory duty to purchase them. The pendency of the appeal did not suspend that obligation, except that the amount attributable to the penalty could be retained subject to the appellate outcome.

Conclusion: The obligation to make payment under section 83 was upheld and the direction to pay the purchase price was affirmed.

Issue (ii): Whether the State could be permitted to recover the purchase price personally from the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer.

Analysis: The liability arising from the statutory purchase under section 83 was that of the State under the Act. A direction shifting that burden to the officer personally was not warranted on the facts and in the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The direction permitting personal recovery from the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer was set aside.

Issue (iii): Whether the pending appeal concerning section 83 survived after the direction to make payment.

Analysis: Once payment under section 83 was directed, the dispute in the respondent's appeal relating to section 83 no longer required adjudication, though the appeal relating to the penalty proceedings under section 78(5) continued.

Conclusion: The appeal relating to section 83 became infructuous, while the appeal relating to section 78(5) continued.

Final Conclusion: The statutory purchase obligation under section 83 was enforced, the personal recovery direction against the officer was removed, and the proceedings were disposed of with only the penalty-related appeal left to continue.

Ratio Decidendi: When the statute makes purchase of seized goods mandatory upon issuance of notice and absence of stay, the authority must pay the purchase price, but liability cannot be shifted personally to the officer unless the statute so permits.

---