Dismissed

Vijay Singh v. a C T O Jaipur

Rajasthan HC20 Sept 2023CR/356/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the levy of penalty and tax under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. The court upheld the Member's order, ruling that the amended provision applicable via immediate effect declarations under the Provisional Collection of Tax Act, 1958, was validly applied to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed; the impugned order upholding the levy of penalty and tax was affirmed. Stay petition disposed of.

Vijay Singh Vs a C T O Jaipur — Rajasthan HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:30974]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 356/2006

Vijay Singh

----Petitioner

Versus

A C T O Jaipur

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Sharad Kothari
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. SandeepBhandawat

¶10

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶11

Order

¶12

20/09/2023

¶13

The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 24.11.2005 passed by Member, Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer whereby the levy of penalty and tax by the non-petitionerAssistant Commissioner Taxes Officer vide order dated 07.05.1999 has been held to be justified.

¶14

The facts of the case are that the ACTO intercepted vehicle of the petitioner, who is a driver, on 06.05.1999 and on physical verification found the goods carried in the vehicle to be without documents and to be different from those mentioned in the documents as produced. Further, declaration form ST-18A was not accompanied and the petitioner could also not get the address/verification of the consignor at Delhi. For the aforesaid violation/breach, a penalty to the tune of 30% of the value of goods amounting to Rs.56946/- and a tax of Rs.16617/- was levied on the petitioner vide order dated 07.05.1999. The amount qua penalty/tax as imposed was recovered on the spot.

[2023:RJ-JD:30974]

[CR-356/2006]

(2 of 3)

The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 07.05.1999 was allowed by the appellate authority vide order dated 31.01.2004 holding that the penalty to the tune of 30% was levied in terms of amended provision in the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act of 1994’) which was inserted in the statute book w.e.f. 14.05.1999 and therefore, the same could not have been applied on the petitioner whose vehicle was intercepted on 06.05.1999. So far as levying of the tax is concerned, the appellate authority held that there was no clause providing for levying tax under Section 78(5) of the Act of 1994 and hence, the order dated 07.05.1999 to that extent was also not sustainable.

¶19

Order dated 31.01.2004 was assailed by the Department before the Rajasthan Tax Board. The learned Member of Rajasthan Tax Board proceeded on to allow the appeal as filed by the non-petitioner holding that as the amended provision had been placed before the State Assembly by way of finance bill on 26.03.1999, the amended provision came into effect from the said date only and hence, was applicable on the petitioner also. Therefore, the levy of penalty was held to be justified and the levy of tax was also upheld on the ground that the petitioner failed to establish on record that the consignor firm at Delhi was registered with the sale tax department of Delhi.

¶20

It is against the said order dated 24.11.2005 that the present revision petition has been preferred.

¶21

So far as the amended provision of Section 78 of the Act of 1994 having come into effect from 26.03.1999 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to dispute the

[2023:RJ-JD:30974]

[CR-356/2006]

(3 of 3)

position of law that in view of Section 3 of the Rajasthan Provisional Collection of Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act of 1958’) if a declaration is inserted in the bill which is sought to be introduced by the State Government to the effect that an amended provision of the bill shall have immediate effect, the amended provision would come into immediate effect.

¶26

So far as the present amended provision is concerned, a declaration in terms of Section 3 of the Act of 1958 was very well made and hence, the provision did come into effect from the date when it was placed before the State Assembly i.e. on 26.03.1999. Therefore, the amended provision was correctly applied in the case of the petitioner whose vehicle was intercepted on 06.05.1999.

¶27

In view of the above admitted position of law, no question of law arises in the present revision petition and the same is therefore, dismissed .

¶28

Stay petition and all the pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶29

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶30

11-T.Singh/-

Vijay Singh v. a C T O Jaipur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Singh v. a C T O Jaipur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Singh Vs Ajay Singh

Baabu Bhai Vs Chand Khan

Aazam Ali Vs Harun

Birma Devi Vs Subhash

Madhu Lal Vs Sita

Om Prakash Vs Mukhtyar Ali