Specific penalty provision prevails over residuary clause where concealment or inaccurate particulars are alleged; matter remitted for reconsideration.

Where a specific penalty provision squarely covers concealment of turnover or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the residuary penalty clause cannot be applied. Concealed diary entries and unreturned documents, if not reflected in the assessment return, were treated as conduct falling within the specific provision for concealment rather than the general clause for wilful contravention not otherwise provided for. The earlier penalty orders were set aside because the matter had been considered on the wrong statutory basis. The issue was remitted for fresh determination of levy and quantum under the correct provision, leaving the substantive penalty question open for reconsideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty for suppression of turnover was exigible under section 16(1)(e) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, or under the residuary provision in section 16(1)(n) of that Act, and whether the matter should be sent back for fresh determination of penalty and quantum.

Analysis: The concealed diary entries and documents were not reflected in the return on the basis of which assessment had been completed, so the omission amounted to concealment of particulars and furnishing of inaccurate particulars in the return. Section 16(1)(e) specifically covered such conduct, while section 16(1)(n) applied only where there was a wilful contravention not otherwise provided for and therefore operated as a residuary provision. The Court treated the statutory language as analogous to the penalty provision considered in income-tax jurisprudence and held that penalty under the specific clause could not be displaced by the residuary clause. As the Board had proceeded on the wrong statutory basis and had not examined the matter under section 16(1)(e) with the required factual scrutiny, the earlier orders could not stand.

Conclusion: Penalty was held to fall, if at all, under section 16(1)(e) and not under section 16(1)(n); the matter was remitted for reconsideration of levy and quantum in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The earlier penalty orders were set aside and the case was sent back for a fresh decision on the proper basis, leaving the substantive penalty question open for redetermination.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a specific penal provision squarely covers concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the residuary penalty provision cannot be invoked.

---