RAMAKANT SAXENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of Sec. 77 (8) of the Sales Tax Act, 1994 on the ground that the same is violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) BRIEFLY, the facts are that the petitioner is a medical practitioner. According to the petitioner, in the usual course of his profession certain articles and medicines remain lying at his residence. These articles are meant to be used in treatment of patients. On 24th January 2000, a survey was conducted at the residential premises of the petitioner in which certain surgical items and medicines were found. The petitioner was served with a notice for imposing penalty u/sec. 77 (8) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, of 1994 ). The petitioner replied to the notice. After further enquiry, the respondent No. 2, Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan, passed an order on 18th April 2000, imposing a penalty amounting to Rs. 1,45,160/- on the petitioner u/sec. 77 (8) of the Act. This was followed by proceedings for realisation under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956.

(3.) FROM the above statement of the petitioner read with definition of the word `dealer' alongwith the explanation, it is clear that it is not possible to exclude the petitioner from the definition of `dealer'. For this reason Sec. 77 of the Act would clearly cover the petitioner and the petitioner is amenable to the provisions contained in the said section. The provision of Sec. 77 being in the nature of penalty and being within the legislative competence of the State, cannot be found fault with particularly on the ground of being violative of article 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. These are salient provisions for checking evasion of tax. Complete machinery for enforcing the provisions is contained within the section itself.