https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166490 For penalty proceedings under section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, as it stood before the 22 March 2002 amendment, the expression "person in charge of the goods" was construed to include the owner of the goods. The statutory scheme under section 78 read with rule 53 placed the duty to fill and furnish Form ST-18A on the purchasing dealer or importer, but the owner could still be proceeded against when the statutory ingredients were established. Once those ingredients were proved after due hearing, penalty followed mandatorily, subject to natural justice. The contrary view of the appellate authorities was not sustained. en-us Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Sep 2014 11:41:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166490 For penalty proceedings under section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, as it stood before the 22 March 2002 amendment, the expression "person in charge of the goods" was construed to include the owner of the goods. The statutory scheme under section 78 read with rule 53 placed the duty to fill and furnish Form ST-18A on the purchasing dealer or importer, but the owner could still be proceeded against when the statutory ingredients were established. Once those ingredients were proved after due hearing, penalty followed mandatorily, subject to natural justice. The contrary view of the appellate authorities was not sustained. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 31 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166490