1993 (10) TMI 344 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Sales Tax Tribunal overturns penalty despite admission of guilt, stresses physical weighment requirement

ACTO Versus Jain Silver Refinery

The Sales Tax Tribunal set aside a penalty imposed under section 22(6)(b) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act despite the assessee's admission of guilt. The ... - Issues:1. Levy of penalty under section 22(6)(b) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act.2. Justification of setting aside penalty despite admission of guilt by the assessee.3. Requirement of physical weighment of goods before imposing penalty.4. Interpretation of provisions of section 22(6) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act.5. Relevance of registration status with the Sales Tax Department in penalty imposition.Detailed Analysis:1. The revision petition was filed against the Sales Tax Tribunal's order setting aside a penalty of Rs. 14,030 imposed under section 22(6)(b) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. The assessing authority questioned the justification of setting aside the penalty despite the admission of guilt by the assessee.2. The facts of the case involved an inspection where unaccounted silver was found in the business premises of the assessee. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty, stating that the assessee, being an unregistered dealer, was not liable under section 22(6)(b) of the Act.3. The assessing authority challenged this decision before the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, which found discrepancies in the order sheet and lack of physical verification of goods. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of actual weighment of goods before imposing a penalty.4. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of section 22(6) of the Act, which requires goods to be unaccounted for in the dealer's possession. It was noted that seizure of goods must be based on thorough verification and not merely on suspicion or incomplete information.5. The Tribunal also considered the non-registration of the assessee with the Sales Tax Department for over 10 years. While this fact was relevant for assessing conduct, it was deemed irrelevant for penalty imposition. The Tribunal upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and set aside the penalty, concluding that the assessing authority failed to establish the necessary ingredients for penalty imposition.6. The judgment dismissed the revision petition, stating that the Tribunal was justified in its decision. The court emphasized the importance of following due process and establishing all essential elements before levying penalties under the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act.