COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER Vs. FABRICO SARAF HOUSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE department of Commercial Taxes through the Commercial Taxes Officer has challenged the order passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, dated March 10, 1998 by which the penalty imposed on the respondent - M/s. Fabrico Saraf House, M. I. Road, Jaipur, for non-user of the power-loom for his personal use and letting it out on rent to someone else incurring imposition of penalty, has been set aside. From the impugned order itself it is borne out that the respondent although had purchased the power-loom for his personal use in order to set it up on a plot of land which was to be allotted to him by the Rajasthan Industrial Development and Investment Corporation ("riico", for short), could not be allotted in his favour and thus for reasons beyond the control of the respondent, he had to let out the machine on rent to someone else. THE Rajasthan Tax Board accepted the justification offered by the respondent and set aside the penalty imposed on the respondent due to non-user of this machinery for the specified and declared purpose. Assailing the aforesaid order of the Rajasthan Tax Board, it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent could not have been allowed to get away with the penalty imposed on him by the department of Commercial Taxes as he had purchased the machinery at a concessional rate for his personal use and yet he put this machine to commercial use by letting it out on rent. In order to test the strength of this submission, section 10 of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 had to be perused which deals with penalties in the event of the machine not being put to use for the purpose for which it was purchased at concessional rate and clause (d) of this section itself lays down that penalty would be imposed if any person "after purchasing any goods for any of the purposes specified in clause (b), or clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (3) of section 8 fails, without reasonable excuse, to make use of the goods for any such purpose. . . . . . . , he shall be punishable with simple imprisonment which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both; and when the offence is a continuing offence, with a daily fine which may extend to fifty rupees for every day during which the offence continues". It is no doubt true that the respondent admittedly, did not put the power-loom for the use for which it was purchased, i. e. , for his personal use, but it could be noticed that clause (d) itself incorporates the expression "without reasonable excuse, to make use of the goods for any such purpose", which means that the penalty could be levied only if there was no reasonable justification on behalf of the purchaser for putting the purchased goods to some other use. It is not even the case of the petitioner that the respondent is a defaulter in making payment to the RIICO for not getting allotment of the plot of land to him and if due to inaction on the part of the RIICO, the respondent could not set up the power-loom on the plot of land and thus was unable to use it for personal reason in the strict sense, it would be imprudent to hold that he should have allowed the power-loom to turn into a junk by not even letting it out. In that view of the matter, the imposition of penalty on the respondent was infact unjustified and hence, the view taken by the Tax Board appears to be just and reasonable as also in consonance with the penalty clause of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. This revision therefore, is not fit to be entertained and accordingly it stands dismissed. Revision dismissed. .