ACTO Vs. AMIT STONE CRUSHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 04.04.2007 of the Tax Board whereby Revenue's appeal was dismissed upholding the order of learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dated 28.03.2005. Both the appellate authorities held that penalty under Section 78 (5) of RST Act, 1994 on the Respondent -Assessee, owner of the goods, found in transit at the time of checking on 15.09.2003 through Vehicle No. RJ -02 -G -0852 at 'Dharuheda' Check Post was not accompanied by the declaration in Form ST -18A though the goods in question found to be carried through the vehicle, were notified under the RST Rules, 1994.

(2.) THE penalty under Section 78 (5) has been set aside by the appellate authorities on the ground that prior to amendment of Section 78 (5) w.e.f. 22.03.2002 such penalty could not be imposed on the owner of the goods but could only be imposed on the person in -charge of the goods.

(3.) HOWEVER , the Apex Court's decision in terms of para 32 of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and Anr. v. D.P. Metals, reported in : (2002) 1 SCC 279, which is also quoted herein below: