1969 (10) TMI 61 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty on the assessee for failure to register under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954.
2. Jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue to entertain a revision petition instead of an appeal.
3. Determination of whether chapatis fall under exempted goods category.

Imposition of Penalty:
The judgment pertains to an assessee, Heeralal, who was penalized for not registering under section 6(1) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. The Assistant Sales Tax Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 11 on the assessee, which was challenged through a revision application before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan. The Board held that the penalty was consequential to non-registration and set aside the Assistant Sales Tax Officer's order. The court emphasized that the imposition of penalty precedes compulsory registration, and the dealer must first appeal against the penalty under section 13 before being registered. The court cited a previous case to highlight the limited revisional jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue under section 14 of the Act, affirming that the Board cannot set aside a penalty order if the dealer has not appealed against it.

Jurisdiction of Board of Revenue:
The court addressed the issue of whether the Board of Revenue had the authority to entertain a revision petition instead of an appeal by the assessee. Section 6(5) of the Act mandates that the assessing authority must register a dealer after imposing a penalty. The court clarified that the imposition of penalty is a prerequisite for compulsory registration, and a dealer must appeal against the penalty before being registered. The court held that the Board of Revenue exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the penalty order in a revision application, emphasizing that the dealer's right to appeal must be exhausted before revision can be considered.

Exempted Goods Classification:
Regarding the classification of chapatis as exempted goods, the court did not delve into this issue due to the affirmative answer given to the first question regarding jurisdiction. The court deemed it unnecessary to address whether chapatis fall under the exempted goods category, as the primary issue of jurisdiction had been resolved. Consequently, the court did not provide a specific ruling on the classification of chapatis under the Act.

In conclusion, the court affirmed that the Board of Revenue erred in entertaining a revision petition without the assessee first appealing against the penalty order. The judgment clarified the sequence of penalty imposition and compulsory registration, emphasizing the importance of exhausting the appeal process before seeking revision. The court's decision focused on upholding the procedural requirements under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954.