Broad reading of goods-in-charge liability under Rajasthan sales tax law allows penalty to reach the owner for declaration defaults.

For the pre-22.03.2002 period, Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 was read broadly so that the prescribed declaration had to accompany movement of taxable goods and the purchasing dealer bore the duty to furnish it. The expression "person in-charge of the goods" was treated as wide enough to include the owner, and the 2002 amendment was viewed as clarificatory rather than creating a new liability. On that basis, penalty was not confined to the vehicle driver or person physically in charge; it could also be imposed on the owner, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for the period prior to 22.03.2002, penalty under Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 could be imposed on the owner of the goods, and whether the matter deserved remand for fresh decision on merits.

Analysis: The expression used in the pre-amended Section 78(5) was construed broadly in light of the scheme of Section 78 as a whole and Rule 53 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1995. The provision required the prescribed declaration to accompany the movement of taxable goods, and the duty to furnish the declaration lay with the purchasing dealer. The Court relied on the binding interpretation that the words "person in-charge of the goods" were wide enough to include the owner, and that the 2002 amendment was in the nature of substitution clarifying the earlier position rather than introducing a new liability. On facts, the explanation regarding the declaration form was found to be inconsistent and not sufficient to displace the finding of default.

Conclusion: The earlier view that penalty could be imposed only on the vehicle in-charge or driver was rejected, and the penalty could legally be imposed on the owner as well. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Tax Board for a fresh decision on merits.

---