2013 (11) TMI 52

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....st the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No.110 of 2009, dated 01.07.2009. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has set aside the penalty levied by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Bhiwadi (Revenue) in exercise of their powers under Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (for short ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gra in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officers Vs. Bajaj Electricals Limited, reported in (2009) 1 SCC 308. In the said decision, this Court has observed: "If one reads sub-section (5) of Section 78 in its entirety with Rule 53 of the 1995 Rules, it is clear that penalty was liable to be imposed for importation of any taxable goods for sale without fu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rson in-charge of the goods" under Section 78(5) would include the owner. Moreover, under Section 78(2) the words used are "person in-charge of a vehicle or carrier of goods in movement" whereas the words in Section 78(5) which comes after subsection (4) refers to "person in-charge of the goods". The words "in movement" do not find place in Section 78(5) and therefore the expression "person in cha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... or person in-charge of the goods". It is once again emphasized that Act No.7 of 2002 is an exercise in substitution. Therefore, the Legislature seeks to clarify the expression "person in-charge of the goods" occurring in Section 78(5) as it stood earlier by Act No.7 of 2002. In fact, it is interesting to note that even under Section 22A(3) of the 1954 Act, penalty was leviable on the "owner of th....