Prescribed notice and jurisdictional defects defeated compulsory registration and penalty under sales tax law

A valid notice in the prescribed form was treated as mandatory for jurisdiction under section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, and section 19A was not regarded as curing that defect. The record also showed inconsistent treatment of the registration certificate, use of forms that did not match the basis of liability, and proceedings pursued against both a dissolved firm and its partners without adequate enquiry. Even on a compulsory registration footing under section 6, the material did not support fastening liability or imposing penalty, so the revision failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revision authority could interfere with the Tribunal's order setting aside compulsory registration and penalty under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, where the proceedings were found to suffer from absence of a valid notice in the prescribed form and other jurisdictional infirmities.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the record showed a confused and inconsistent course of action: the registration certificate had been cancelled and revived on conflicting dates, the forms allegedly used did not match the form on which liability was built, the firm was treated as dissolved while proceedings were pursued against the partners and the dissolved firm, and no proper enquiry was made regarding issuance or use of the declaration forms. On the footing that the proceedings were under section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, a notice in the prescribed form was mandatory for jurisdiction, and section 19A did not cure the defect. Even if the matter were viewed as one of compulsory registration under section 6, the record did not establish a sufficient basis for fastening liability or imposing penalty.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's decision was in law and the revision was dismissed, leaving the assessee in a successful position.

---