TRANSWAYS OF INDIA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the proprietary concern. Liluram s/o. Ramswaroop is its proprietor. It is registered under the Shops and Establishment Act (annexure P/1). The "petitioner" is engaged in the business of transport of goods on charges from one place to another through its own trucks as also trucks hired by it for that purpose.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that on October 9, 1992, the officer of the Sales Tax Department, seized certain loose papers from one V. R. Singh, a person employed as a clerk by the petitioner. These papers manifested the activities of transport of certain goods. On the basis of these papers, the Deputy Sales Tax Officer, served notice (annexure P/2) on the petitioner to furnish the information under rule 36 framed under section 29 of the Madhya Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1958. The petitioner contended that the aforesaid notice was without authority of law as the petitioner was not a dealer in terms of the law. The authorities did not accept the contention. Thereafter, the Sales Tax Officer passed the order dated March 15, 1993 under section 36 -A(2) of the aforesaid Act imposing the penalty of Rs. 18,48,015 (annexure P/5). The Sales Tax Officer, thereafter, issued demand notice for recovery of the aforesaid amount (annexure P/6). Aggrieved by the order dated March 15, 1993 (annexure P/5) and the demand notice dated March 19, 1993 (annexure P/6), the petitioner has filed this petition seeking quashment.

(3.) THE counsel for the petitioner submitted that entire action is without authority of law and, thus, without jurisdiction. According to him, the petitioner is not the dealer in terms of section 2(d) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act and as such notice under section 29 and order under section 36 -A(2) of the aforesaid Act against the petitioner are impermissible under the law. The counsel urged that the petitioner acted only as a transporter and was not a dealer and as such no tax or penalty was leviable against or imposable on the petitioner. He, therefore, prayed for quashment of order as also demand notice particularised as above.