Penalty for excess tax realized cannot be replaced by forfeiture of refunded tax under the sales tax statute.

Section 16(1)(j) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 was construed as authorising penalty for a registered dealer's realization of excess tax, not forfeiture of excess tax already refunded. The assessing authority's forfeiture order was inconsistent with the statutory scheme because it substituted forfeiture for the penalty mechanism provided by law. Reading section 16(1)(j) with section 23B, the HC found no legal basis for the Revenue's challenge and no illegality or material irregularity in the appellate authorities' concurrent findings. The forfeiture was therefore unsustainable, and the relief granted to the assessee was affirmed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the forfeiture of excess tax refunded by a registered dealer under section 16(1)(j) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 was lawful, and whether the appellate authorities committed any illegality or material irregularity in setting aside the assessing authority's order.

Analysis: Section 16(1)(j) was held to provide for levy of penalty where a registered dealer realizes excess tax, but not for forfeiture of excess tax already refunded. The assessing authority had not levied penalty and instead forfeited the refunded amount, which was found to be inconsistent with the statutory scheme. Reading section 16(1)(j) along with section 23B, the Court found no support for the Revenue's contention and no basis to disturb the concurrent appellate findings.

Conclusion: The forfeiture order was not sustainable, and the appellate orders were not shown to suffer from any illegality or material irregularity.

Final Conclusion: The revision petition failed, and the relief granted by the appellate authorities to the assessee stood affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute authorizes penalty for realization of excess tax but does not authorize forfeiture of refunded excess tax, such forfeiture cannot be sustained.

---