9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 52 - SC - VAT and Sales TaxLevy of penalty against the owner of the vehicle - Amendment made in Section 78(5) vide Act No.7 of 2002 - Held that - M/s. Guljag Industries (supra) finds support from the amendment made in Section 78(5) vide Act No.7 of 2002 w.e.f. 22.3.2002 by which the expression person in-charge of the goods under the old Section 78(5) is substituted by the words the owner of the goods or a person authorized in writing by such owner 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 the goods for possession of goods not covered by the Goods Vehicle Record - Following decision of Guljag Industries Versus COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER 2007 (8) TMI 344 - SUPREME Court - Decided against assessee.
Issues:
Appeal against penalty levied by Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer under Section 78(5) of Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. Analysis: The appeal before the Supreme Court was against the judgment and order of the High Court setting aside the penalty imposed by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer under Section 78(5) of the Act. The High Court held that the Revenue could not direct the owner of the vehicle to pay the penalty. The issue raised in the appeal was already settled by a previous judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officers Vs. Bajaj Electricals Limited. The Court observed that the penalty under Section 78(5) could be imposed for importation of taxable goods without furnishing a declaration. The Court clarified that the expression "person in-charge of the goods" under Section 78(5) included the owner, as per the provisions of the Act. The Supreme Court, relying on its previous decision and the legislative amendment to Section 78(5), held that the judgment of the High Court could not be sustained. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the penalty imposed by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer. The Court emphasized that the legislative amendment clarified that the expression "person in-charge of the goods" included the owner or a person authorized by the owner. Therefore, the penalty imposed on the owner of the vehicle carrying goods was valid under Section 78(5) of the Act.
|
