MOHD UMAR MOHD HAROON Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to the present writ petition may briefly be stated as under. The petitioner -firm has been assessed for Rajasthan Sales Tax and Central Sales Tax for two years from 1 -4 -77 to 31 -3 -1979 by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Ward C -1, Makrana, his orders dated 5 -11 -80 (Ex. 1 to Ex. 4) and simultaneously he imposed penalty under Section 7AA of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act as amended by the Amending Act No. 4 of 1979. The petitioner went in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner Commercial Taxes (Administration), Jodhpur. He moved an application for staying recovery of the penalty. The Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Administration) by its order dated 4 -3 -1981 declined to stay the recovery of the amount of penalty. The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the imposition of penalty under Section 7AA and has also prayed that the order, which has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Administration) on 4 -3 -1981 refusing to stay the recovery of penalty is contrary to proviso, third to Section 11, Sub -section (3), inasmuch as no reason have been recorded by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Administration) in contravention of the said provision, so the orders dated 4 -3 -1981 (Ex. 5 to Ex. 8) may be quashed.

(2.) ON behalf of the Revenue, the writ petition has been resisted so far as the imposition of penalty is concerned on the ground that an alternative remedy has already been availed by the petitioner inasmuch as he has filed appeals before the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Administration) and these appeals are still pending, so, this writ petition is not maintainable with regard to the assessment orders of penalty Ex. 1 to Ex. 4. As regards orders dated 4 -3 -1981, the parties are not at issue in view of a Bench Decision of this Court in Bhanwar Lal Jain v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. 1979 WLN 701.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner also referred to Article 20 of the Constitution and submitted that greater penalty could not have been imposed under the amended Section 7AA. In this connection suffice it to say that reference to Article 20 is absolutely uncalled for and has no relevance for it deals with a prosecution and penalty for offences and not for penalties, which are impossible under taxing statute. Thus, so far as the assessment orders Ex. 1 to Ex. 4 are concerned, the present writ petition is not maintainable.