https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200105 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. en-us Wed, 23 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Mar 2018 07:12:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200105 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. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 23 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200105