9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (12) TMI 358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I, Jaipur dated February 27, 1991, confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 8,097 imposed under section 22(6), Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (in short, "the Act") has been set aside. 2.. The facts of the case may be summarised thus: On September 3, 1986, the business premises of the dealer was surveyed by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti-Evasion, Sikar (petitioner). The proprietor of the firm was not present at that time but his son Naresh Kumar was present. On checking, 69 bags of mustard and 47 tins of oil were found in excess. The same day, notice was issued for September 18, 1986 to show cause as to why the said mustard bags and tins of oil be not taken into custody and penalty be not imposed under section 22(6)(b) of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time of the survey or not and he had the authority to move the said application admitting the presence of unaccounted goods and requesting for the disposal of the case the same day. He lastly contended that the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal has rightly held that Naresh Kumar had no authority either expressly or impliedly to act in the manner he has acted in the said proceedings launched by the petitioner against the said dealer-respondent. 5.. There is no substance in the application for revision. There is nothing on the record to indicate that Naresh Kumar was major at the time of the survey. Even the name of the proprietor of M/s. Mahalaxmi Oil and Flour Mills, Nawalgarh (dealer-respondent) has not appeared at any stage of the proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mstances, the Tribunal has rightly held that Naresh Kumar was not an authorised agent of the dealer-respondent. Submission of application before the petitioner admitting the possession of unaccounted goods and expressing readyness and willingness to pay penalty could not be said to be in the ordinary course of dealing within the meaning of section 187, Contract Act. The dealer-respondent could not be held liable under section 22(6)(b) of the Act for such an act and omission on the part of his son in the absence of an authority from him. 7.. There is yet another aspect of the matter. Penalty proceedings under the Act are quasi-criminal in nature. It is stated in the survey report that stock register disclosed that for September 2, 1986, en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
