1996 (4) TMI 460 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 22A and Rule 62A of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 and Rules, 1955.
2. Applicability of Section 22C of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954.
3. Validity of the penalty imposed for non-furnishing of declaration forms ST-18/18A.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 22A and Rule 62A of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 and Rules, 1955:
The petitioner contended that Section 22A of the 1954 Act and Rule 62A of the 1955 Rules were not applicable as they pertained to goods imported loaded on a vehicle, boat, or animal, and not to a vehicle being driven on the road. The Tribunal noted that Section 22A was not directly applicable to the case, as it dealt with the examination of goods being carried in or on a vehicle, boat, or animal, and not the vehicle itself. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 22A(7) for non-furnishing of forms ST-18/18A was unwarranted.

2. Applicability of Section 22C of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954:
Section 22C, which came into force on April 1, 1987, required a prescribed form of declaration for importing goods into the state. However, the form of declaration was prescribed only on May 26, 1987, with the insertion of Rule 62B in the 1955 Rules. The Tribunal noted that since the vehicle was seized on April 9, 1987, before the form of declaration was prescribed, the petitioner was not required to furnish the declaration form under Section 22C.

3. Validity of the penalty imposed for non-furnishing of declaration forms ST-18/18A:
The Tribunal found that the penalty imposed for non-furnishing of forms ST-18/18A was invalid as these forms were not the prescribed forms under Section 22C(1) at the time of the vehicle's seizure. The Tribunal emphasized that in the absence of a prescribed form of declaration until May 26, 1987, no offence under Section 22C could be committed. Consequently, the penalty of Rs. 45,837 was set aside, and it was ordered to be refunded to the petitioner with interest at 15% per annum.

Separate Judgments Delivered:
- R.K. Nair (Technical Member): Concluded that the penalty was unwarranted and should be refunded with interest.
- J.P. Bansal (Judicial Member): Concurred with the conclusion but added that the case involved the interpretation of Sections 22A and 22C and their interrelationship. He emphasized that Section 22A was not applicable to the vehicle itself but to goods carried on it, and Section 22C required a prescribed declaration form which was not available at the time of the incident.
- Milap Chandra Jain (Chairman): Agreed with the conclusions of the other members.

Conclusion:
The writ petition was allowed, the penalty was set aside, and the amount, if recovered, was ordered to be refunded to the petitioner with interest. No order as to costs was made.