2012 (11) TMI 331

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Leave granted. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated June 29, 2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench in S. B. Sales Tax Revision Petition Civil No. 139 of 2009. The Revenue, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, had approached the High Court in S. B. Sales Tax Revision Petition Civil No. 139 of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... duty to fill and furnish the said form is imposed on the purchasing dealer. Therefore, section 78(5) as it stood prior to March 22, 2002 imposed penalty if possession or movement of goods took place, inter alia, in breach of section 78(2)(a) on 'the person in-charge', which included the owner. In this connection it may be noted that sub-section (5) comes after sub-section (4)(c) which talks about .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on 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'." We are in agreement with the decisions of this court. In view of the conclusions reached by this court in the above case, the High Court was not justified in ob .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X