Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, for penalty proceedings under section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 as it stood before the amendment with effect from 22 March 2002, the expression "person in charge of the goods" included the owner of the goods, and whether the penalty could be sustained against the owner for absence of declaration form ST-18A.
Analysis: The decision relied on the earlier interpretation that section 78(5), read with rule 53 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1995 and the scheme of section 78 as a whole, placed the duty to fill and furnish form ST-18A on the purchasing dealer or importer. The expression "person in charge of the goods" in section 78(5) was held to be wider than the expression used in section 78(2)(a), and it included the owner who was entitled to hearing and to seek release of the goods on security under section 78(4)(c). It was also reiterated that once the ingredients of section 78(5) are established, penalty is mandatory, subject to compliance with principles of natural justice.
Conclusion: The owner of the goods was liable to penalty under section 78(5) even for the period prior to the amendment, and the contrary view of the appellate authorities could not be sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: Under section 78(5), the expression "person in charge of the goods" includes the owner of the goods, and where the statutory ingredients are established after due hearing, penalty follows mandatorily.