Interception of goods in transit and penalty upheld where false documents were found and statutory powers prevailed over a circular.

Section 78 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 authorises interception and inspection of goods in transit by the empowered officer, and supports seizure and penalty where prescribed documents are absent, false, or forged. A circular dated 11 October 1995 could not curtail that statutory power or create immunity from action under the Act. The record showed notice, hearing, and an explanation from the transport company's representative before penalty was imposed, so the enquiry requirement was satisfied. Transfer of the file under section 41 was also upheld as an administrative step causing no shown prejudice.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Commercial Taxes Officer had jurisdiction to intercept and inspect the trucks and goods in transit and whether the respondent could impose penalty under section 78 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994; (ii) whether the circular dated 11 October 1995 restricted the statutory power of interception and inspection; (iii) whether a proper enquiry and opportunity of hearing were granted before imposing penalty; and (iv) whether transfer of the file under section 41 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 was without jurisdiction.

Issue (i): whether the Commercial Taxes Officer had jurisdiction to intercept and inspect the trucks and goods in transit and whether the respondent could impose penalty under section 78 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994.

Analysis: Section 78 empowered the officer in charge of a check-post, and also the officer empowered by the State Government, to stop and inspect goods in movement within Rajasthan. The provision required the driver or person in charge to carry and produce prescribed documents, and authorised seizure and penalty where the documents were absent, false, forged, or otherwise unsupported. On the facts, the goods were found with false and forged documents, and the persons in charge were proceeded against after notice and hearing.

Conclusion: The interception, inspection, and penalty proceedings were within jurisdiction and are upheld.

Issue (ii): whether the circular dated 11 October 1995 restricted the statutory power of interception and inspection.

Analysis: A circular cannot override the express mandate of the statute. The statutory power under section 78 controlled the field, and the circular could not confer immunity on persons using false or forged documents to evade tax.

Conclusion: The circular did not invalidate the action taken under the Act and the challenge fails.

Issue (iii): whether a proper enquiry and opportunity of hearing were granted before imposing penalty.

Analysis: Notice was issued to the drivers, the matter was heard, and the manager of the transport company was also given an opportunity to explain the documents and the identity of the consignor and consignees. The explanation was found unsatisfactory, and the authority recorded its finding before imposing penalty.

Conclusion: The enquiry was proper and the requirement of hearing was satisfied.

Issue (iv): whether transfer of the file under section 41 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 was without jurisdiction.

Analysis: Section 41(4) permitted administrative transfer of a file from one officer or authority to another without notice. No prejudice from the transfer was shown on the record.

Conclusion: The transfer was valid and caused no prejudice.

Final Conclusion: The statutory challenge to the penalty orders failed on all material grounds, and the impugned orders were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods in movement within the State may be intercepted and penalised under section 78 where prescribed documents are false or forged, and an administrative circular cannot curtail that statutory power.

---