KALURAM MADANGOPAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order levying penalty under Sec. 78 (5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 in a sum equal to 30% of the value of the goods while they were in transit. THE penalty has been levied solely on the ground that form ST 18-A which was accompanying the goods in transit at the time of checking was incomplete in some respects. No other breach of requirement of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 78 of the Act has been found.

(2.) THE validity of the levy of penalty has been challenged inter-alia on the ground that the provisions of Sec. 78 (5) of the Act authorising the levy of penalty equal to 30% of the value of the goods are ultra vires to the Article 14 of the Constitution of India contending that Rule 53 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1995 which requires a declaration from the importer in Form ST 18-A/18-AA by the carrier of the goods to be produced at the time of inspection while entering the territory of Rajasthan at the checkpost is also invalid.

(3.) MOREOVER, keeping in view the opinion expressed by this Court in D. P. Metals case, referred to above (1) affirming the view expressed by this Court in ACTO vs. Voltas Ltd. (2) decided on 21. 1. 2000 and Mahaveer Conductors vs. ACTO (3) that penalty for mere non-production of documents by the transporter at the time of inspection does not result in automatic levy of penalty without having an opportunity to show existence of circumstances in which penalty is not leviable and that no penalty is leviable unless nexus between the default committed and intention to evade or avoid any tax on the sale or purchase of goods within the State of Rajasthan is established. Agreeing with the view expressed in Voltas Ltd. and other cases referred to in the above judgment, the Division Bench has further held that provisions for carrying declaration of the importer in the Form No. 18-A or 18-AA by the transporter or carrier is not treated to be mandatory requirement and that the production of such declaration form later on during the course of enquiry even by the importer is substantial compliance of the provisions. In that view of the matter, we do not deem it necessary necessary to examine the issue about vires of Rule 53 in this case.