Mandatory 15-day notice requirement vitiates penalty proceedings despite interception falling within the statutory enforcement provision.

A hand-pushed cart was treated as a vehicle within the ordinary meaning of section 22A(7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, so the enforcement machinery for goods carried in it applied. However, the requirement under rule 63(3) to serve a 15-day notice was held mandatory as part of the reasonable opportunity contemplated by section 22A(7). Because no such notice was served, the penalty proceedings suffered from a fatal procedural defect that was not cured by the same-day request for finalisation, and the penalty and appellate order could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a hand-pushed cart is covered by section 22A(7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954; (ii) whether service of a 15-day notice under rule 63(3) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1955 is mandatory and, if omitted, vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Issue (i): whether a hand-pushed cart is covered by section 22A(7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954.

Analysis: The provision applied to transportation by vehicle, boat and animal. A hand-pushed cart is a conveyance used for transporting goods on land and therefore falls within the ordinary meaning of vehicle. The statutory machinery under section 22A(7) was therefore applicable to goods carried in such a cart.

Conclusion: Yes. A hand-pushed cart is a vehicle for the purposes of section 22A(7), so the provision applied.

Issue (ii): whether service of a 15-day notice under rule 63(3) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1955 is mandatory and, if omitted, vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Analysis: Rule 63(3) required notice calling for documents and correct particulars to be served within 15 days, and this requirement was read in the context of the reasonable opportunity contemplated by section 22A(7). As no 15-day notice was served, the proceedings suffered from a mandatory procedural defect. The defect was not cured by the same-day request for finalisation, particularly in view of the uncontroverted allegation of duress and the absence of enquiry from the consignee.

Conclusion: Yes. The 15-day notice requirement was mandatory and its breach vitiated the penalty proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The penalty and the appellate order could not be sustained, and the revision failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing provision requires a notice period as part of the reasonable opportunity before penalty, strict compliance with that mandatory notice requirement is necessary, and failure to comply vitiates the penalty proceedings even if the underlying seizure or interception falls within the statutory expression used in the enforcement provision.

---