9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (10) TMI 454X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal (as the Rajasthan Tax Board was then known and hereinafter referred to as, the Board ) accepting the appeal of the petitioner and setting aside the judgment dated July 12, 1993 of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)-III, Jaipur in appeal No. 124/RST /JPA/DC-3 as well as the order dated May 18, 1992 of the present petitioner levying a registration fee of Rs. 50 and imposing a penalty of Rs. 500 under section 16(1)(a), RST Act. 3.. Brief facts are that the non-petitioner and one other (referred to as the other partner) had a partnership-firm known as M/s. Prem Oil Industries duly registered under the RST Act ever since February 5, 1974. In the course of assessment for 1987-88 by an order dated June 26, 1989 the registration certificate ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice in the prescribed form the petitioner could not assume jurisdiction and the entire proceedings before him stood vitiated by this fatal infirmity. 8.. A perusal of the Board s order shows that the proceedings in this case before the petitioner was a veritable, to use the Board s words, hotch-potch . The Board had the original records before it and found that: (i) it was undisputed that RC in the name of the firm was cancelled with effect from October 23, 1987 and was revived from October 21, 1987 in the name of the erstwhile partners; (ii) the mismatch between the dates was unexplained; (iii) the forms were said to have been used by the firm and yet the partners were being impleaded; (iv) the firm was being accepted as dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o get jurisdiction and section 19A, RST Act is to no avail as has been held in Commercial Taxes Officer v. Kistoor Mal Gulab Chand [1993] 88 STC 21 (Raj) and in Braham Dutt v. Sales Tax Officer (1968) II TR 61. There is a specific finding of the Board that the notice was not in the prescribed form. 10.. If the proceedings are taken to be merely one of compulsory registration under section 6, RST Act and penalty for failure to get registered then too in the absence of any proof on the record against the petitioner he could not be implicated. 11.. Therefore, looked at from any angle it must be said that the Board determined the matter correctly. 12.. The application for revision is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
