Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1985 (7) TMI 333

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ated 16th October, 1979: "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case penalty amounting to Rs. 1,270 under section 22(6) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act was not leviable as the unaccounted for goods were not seized?" On 30th April, 1974 the assessing authority made an inspection and survey of the business premises of the dealer-respondent and found that goods of the value of Rs. 6,350 were in possession of the dealer, which were not accounted for in his books of account. The assessing authority, therefore, gave a notice to the dealer-respondent to show cause why the unaccounted for goods be not seized under section 22(6) and why penalty at the rate of 20 per cent of the value of the goods which were not accounted for and which wer .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ) of the Act was filed. That application was dismissed on 16th October, 1979 observing that it is not necessary to make a reference to this Court on the point of law decided by it as it is covered by earlier decisions of the Board and that there is no ambiguity in the provisions of section 22(6) of the Act whatsoever. The assessing authority has filed this application under section 15(2)(b) of the Act as aforesaid. This reference application under section 15(2)(b) of the Act is to be disposed of as a revision under section 15 of the Act as substituted by the Rajasthan Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1984 (No. XX of 1984) ("the Amendment Act") which has come into force on 1st May, 1985 for, section 13(10) of the Amendment Act provides that ever .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for the possession of goods not accounted for (whether seized or not) under clause (a), a penalty not exceeding 20 per cent of the value of such goods, as may be determined by such officer or authority. (c) Such officer or authority may release any goods seized under clause (a) on payment of the penalty under clause (b) or on furnishing such security for the payment thereof as he may consider necessary." The contention raised on behalf of the assessing authority by Mr. K.C. Bhandari is that the expression used in section 22(6)(a) is "power to seize" and therefore, the actual seizure in terms of section 22(6)(a) is not necessary before imposing the penalty. On the other hand, Mr. Dinesh Maheshwari, learned counsel for the dealer-respon .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or the payment as it may think proper in the circumstances of the case. The words "whether seized or not" in clause (b) of section 22(6) were inserted w.e.f. 2nd January, 1976 by Ordinance No. 1 of 1976 which was replaced by Act No. IX of 1976. It was ruled in Manickam and Co. v. The State of Tamil Nadu [1977] 39 STC 12 (SC) by the Supreme Court that if an amendment is made which is by way of clarification of an earlier ambiguous provision it can be useful aid in construing the earlier provision even though such an amendment is not given retrospective effect. The Board in its decisions has taken note of this authority and on its basis construed that under the provisions of section 22(6)(a) actual seizure is necessary. A Division Bench of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of goods is an essential pre-requisite condition for imposition of penalty under section 22(6) of the Act. In that case, there was a voluntary offer or admission by the dealer. The earlier view taken in Bhonrilal Gopal Dass's case 1974 Kanoon Saptahik 262; 1974 RRD 568 and Thakurdas Khatri's case 1976 RRD 247 was followed. In these circumstances, it is clear that the Board has taken a consistent view that penalty cannot be imposed under section 22(6) without actual seizure of the goods. We have considered the reasons given by the Board in the light of the provisions of section 22(6) and also the fact of amendment made in section 22(6) by insertion of the word "whether seized or not" in section 22(6) of the Act. The Legislature seems to ha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates