COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER Vs. OSWAL BROTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE assessee, non -petitioner No. 1 M/s Oswal Bros, purchased last point goods i.e. ground nut worth Rs. 3,55,619.59 p. in the assessment year 1966 -67 (starting from 31 -3 -66 to 17 -4 -67) against declaration form ST 17 with a declared purpose of selling the goods within the State of Rajasthan. Similarly, the assessee purchased last point goods i.e. ground nut etc. worth about Rs. 1,00,000 00 in the assessment year 1967 -68 (starting from 18 -4 -67 to 6 -4 -68) against the declaration in form ST 17 with a declared purpose of selling the goods within the State. The assessee sold these goods in both the assessment years out side the State. The Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle. Jodhpur, found in both the cases that the assessee has contravened the conditions of declaration. He further held that the assessee failed, without reasonable cause, to make use of the goods of the declared purpose. He did not agree with the explanation give n by the assessee. He, therefore, imposed a penalty of Rs. 600/ - for the assessment year 1966 -67 and that of Rs. 300/ - for the assessment year 1967 68 under Section 16(1)(k) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, hereinafter called the R.S.T. Act, vide his order dated 18 -1 -69. Aggrieved by these orders the assessee went in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner Commercial Taxes 'Appeals) Bikaner, who, by his order dated 27 4 -1970, set aside the penalty of Rs. 600/ - imposed for the year 1966 -67 and that of Rs. 300/ - imposed for the year 1967 -68. Aggrieved by this order of the Deputy Commissioner Commercial Taxes (Appeals) Bikaner, dated 27 -4 -1970. the Commercial Taxes Officer. Special Circle, Jodhpur went in revision before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer. The Board of Revenue held that though the assessee's declared purpose was to sell the goods purchased by him within the State of Rajasthan and by selling some of goods outside the State of Rajasthan the assessee has committed the breach of his declaration made in form ST 17. The Board, how ever, held vide its order dated 29 -1 -1975 that the assessee has shown reasonable cause for the failure to abide in his declaration in the instant case. The guilty intention of. The assessee is not obvious in the circumstances of the present case. The Board, therefore, upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Bikaner.

(2.) THE Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Jodhpur, filed a reference application under Section 15(1) of the R.S.T. Act on 21 -10 -1975 before the Board of Revenue suggesting that the following questions of law arise out of the order of the Board and they be referred to this Court:

(3.) MR . Bhandari, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has contended that it admits of no dispute the it the non -petitioner No. 1 purchased last point goods in the relevant years against declaration form ST. 17 with the declared purpose of selling the goods within the State of Rajasthan he has failed to sell these goods in Rajasthan and sold them outside the State of Rajasthan. He ha thus contravened the terms of his declaration made in form S.T. 17. According to Section 16(1)(k) of the R.S.T. Act if a dealer after purchasing any goods in respect of which he has made a declaration under the provisions of this Act or Rules made thereurder, fails without reasonable cause to make use of the goods for the declared purposes, he is liable to pay penalty. The only explanation which non -petitioner No. 1 has given for committing the breach of his declaration is that it is not possible for dealer to predict at the time of purchase as to how and where the goods will be sold. According to Mr. Bhandari this explanation was no explanation at all and in no case this explanation can be said to be a Seasonable cause for committing the breach of the declaration by the non -petitioner No. 1 as to why he sold the goods outside Rajasthan. The Board of Revenue has held it to be a reasonable cause. This order of the Board therefore raised question of law which calls for reference to this Court. The apprehension of Mr. Bhandari seems to be that if such an explanation as given in the present case is accepted as reasonable cause for committing a breach of hi; declaration then in every case a dealer can commit the breach of his declaration with impunity During the course of arguments Mr. Bhandari has, however, submitted that the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer may be directed to state the case and refer the following two questions of law for decision of this Court: