9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (4) TMI 460X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in particular for non-furnishing of a declaration in the prescribed form ST-18/18A. A penalty of Rs. 45,837 equivalent to 20 per cent of the price of the vehicle was imposed under section 22A(7) of the 1954 Act after affording opportunity to show cause against it to the petitioner and after considering the petitioner's written representation. 4.. In the instant proceedings the petitioner seeks the setting aside of the penalty in exercise of this Tribunal's extraordinary jurisdiction under section 8 of the RTT Act. 5.. It is the contention of the petitioner that section 22A of the 1954 Act and rule 62A of the 1955 Rules are not applicable to this case as they do not pertain to the import of vehicles into the State when the vehicle is brought by being driven on the road but to the cases of goods imported loaded on a vehicle, boat or animal, that section 22C of the 1954 Act applied and that came into force only on April 1, 1987 and spoke of a prescribed form of declaration which was prescribed under rule 62B which was inserted in the 1955 Rules only on May 26, 1987; and that, therefore, when his vehicle was seized on April 9, 1987, no form of declaration had been prescribed and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsertion of rule 62B in the 1955 Rules. Therefore the question of the petitioner furnishing the forms of declaration on April 9, 1987, would not arise. 12.. It is an admitted position that the respondent No. 3 imposed the disputed penalty only for non-furnishing of forms ST-18/18A as required under section 22A(3) read with rule 62A. These forms were however not the forms prescribed at the time under section 22C(1) of the 1954 Act and no penalty could therefore be imposed. 13.. In this view of the matter the penalty of Rs. 45,837 imposed on the petitioner was unwarranted and is set aside. The penalty if recovered shall be refunded to the petitioner with interest at 15 per cent per annum. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. J.P. Bansal (Judicial Member).-I have the benefit of going through the judgment prepared by the honourable Technical Member Shri R.K. Nair. While concurring in the conclusion the honourable Member has arrived at I adjudge it wise to add a few paragraphs to it, the reason being that the matter, though a simple one, involves the interpretation of sections 22A and 22C of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in-charge of the check-post or barrier or any other officer empowered by the State Government to examine the goods carried in or on such vehicle, boat or animal and inspect all records relating to the goods being carried. This sub-section (2), it may be mentioned here, speaks of the goods which are being carried in or on the vehicle, boat or animal. It does not speak of the vehicle, boat or animal being the subject-matter of tax. In other words, the vehicle, boat or animal taken by itself is not the subject-matter of sales tax. Sub-section (3) lists the documents which are to be in possession of the owner or person in-charge of a vehicle, boat or animal. Such documents are these: (1) A goods vehicle record, a trip-sheet or a log book, as the case may be; (2) such other documents as may be prescribed in respect of the goods being carried such as invoice and goods receipt, etc.; and (3) a declaration containing such particulars as may be prescribed such as form ST-18, form ST-18A or form ST-18AA, etc. A copy of the said declaration shall be given to the officer-in-charge of the check-post or the barrier or the officer empowered as aforesaid. Every category of these documents has it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing authority, he need not pay the sales tax. It was laid down by the apex Court in the case of Gannon Dunkerley Co. v. State of Rajasthan [1993] 88 STC 204, that the State Legislature does not possess the power to frame its law in such a way as to convert an outside sale or a sale in the course of import and export into a sale inside the State. Since it was a case of import of the open chassis from outside the State into the State of Rajasthan it was not exigible to tax. The only requirement laid down by subsection (1) of section 22C was that the importer must have obtained, possessed and produced a copy of the declaration in a prescribed form. This provision is for the benefit of the assessees themselves. The proviso to sub-section (1) makes it clear that in case such a person or importer fails to obtain the prescribed form of declaration as laid down by sub-section (1) it shall be presumed that the goods have been purchased by him within the State. In that case he shall be liable to pay tax. The burden to displace the presumption that the goods were purchased by him within the State shall lie upon him. Sub-section (2) provides that such form of declaration as prescribed s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubstance of the matter" and "spirit behind the provisions of law in question". In A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala [1957] 8 STC 561 (SC); AIR 1957 SC 657, His Lordship Bhagwati, J., stated the principle thus: "..............in construing fiscal statutes and in determining the liability of a subject to tax one must have regard to the strict letter of the law and not merely to the spirit of the statute or the substance of the law. If the Revenue satisfies the court that the case falls strictly within the provisions of the law, the subject can be taxed. If on the other hand, the case is not covered within the four corners of the provisions of the taxing statute, no tax can be imposed by inference or by analogy or by trying to probe into the intentions of the Legislature and by considering what was the substance of the matter." 22.. In Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Modi Sugar Mills Ltd. [1961] 12 STC 182 (SC); AIR 1961 SC 1047, which concerned the imposition of a different tariff in the course of a year under the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, his Lordship Shah, J., has formulated the principle thus: "In interpreting a taxing statute, equitable considerations are entirely out of place ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in contents it must be presumed that it was the duty of the petitioner to apply for and obtain a form of declaration as prescribed under rule 62A. He further contends that the petitioner did not even take the trouble to apply for the form of declaration. Allied to it is his contention that the offence under section 22C was committed the moment the open chassis was brought into Rajasthan from outside the State on April 9, 1987. In view of the rules of interpretation applicable to taxing statutes these contentions are devoid of any force. Taxing statutes as mentioned earlier must be strictly construed. Each and every requirement laid down under the statute must be complied with. Section 22C speaks of a form of declaration to be prescribed by the department. Since the department did not take the trouble to prescribe the form of declaration in clear terms until May 26, 1987, the person bringing the goods into Rajasthan from outside the State cannot be held responsible. The position would have been otherwise if the petitioner had brought the goods into Rajasthan from outside the State after May 26, 1987. If the department had thought that the form of declaration as mentioned in sub-s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
