9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (11) TMI 331 - SC - VAT and Sales TaxPenalty under Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 - Possession or movement of goods took place - breach of section 78(2)(a) - penalty on the person in-charge , which included the owner Held that - 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 sub-section (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-charge of goods under section 78(5) was wider than the expression person in-charge of goods in movement under section 78(2)(a). Consequently, the expression person in-charge of the goods under section 78(5) who is given an opportunity of being heard in the enquiry would include the owner of the goods Following the decision in Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Bajaj Electricals Ltd. 2008 (11) TMI 374 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , decided against the assessee.
Issues:
Appeal against High Court judgment in Sales Tax Revision Petition Civil No. 139 of 2009. Analysis: The appeal before the Supreme Court was against the judgment and order dated June 29, 2009, passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench in Sales Tax Revision Petition Civil No. 139 of 2009. The Revenue, dissatisfied with the orders of the Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, had approached the High Court seeking revision. The High Court had disposed of the revision petition solely on the basis that the penalty was imposed on the owner of the goods during a vehicle check by the check-post authority. The appellant's counsel contended that the High Court's reasoning contradicted the observations made by the Supreme Court in a previous case. The Supreme Court referred to a specific case where it was held that the penalty for the possession or movement of goods in breach of the law was liable to be imposed on the owner of the goods. The Court emphasized that the owner had the duty to fill and furnish the necessary declaration form, and thus, the penalty imposed on the owner was justified. The Court highlighted that the expression "person in-charge of the goods" under the relevant section of the law included the owner of the goods. Therefore, the High Court erred in its judgment by focusing on the distinction between the owner and the person in charge of the vehicle. In light of the previous Supreme Court decision and the legal interpretation provided, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and confirmed the penalty imposed by the check-post authority on the owner of the goods. The Court's decision was based on the understanding that the owner of the goods was indeed liable for penalties under the law, contrary to the High Court's reasoning.
|
