Skip to content


Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Rambilas Bhojnalaya - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectSales Tax
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberD.B. Civil Sales Tax Reference No. 19 of 1968
Judge
Reported in[1970]25STC344(Raj)
AppellantAssistant Commercial Taxes Officer
RespondentRambilas Bhojnalaya
Appellant Advocate Rajnarain, Additional Government Adv.
Respondent Advocate M. Mridul, Adv.
Cases ReferredJaipur v. Chhaganmal Bastimal of Beawar
Excerpt:
.....- (1) whether in view of the provisions of section 14 of the rajasthan sales tax act, 1954, the board of revenue was wrong in entertaining the revision petition of heeralal as he could have appealed under section 13 of the aforesaid act and he had failed to do so ? (2) whether chapatis fall in the category of exempted goods as they fall within item no. (1). section 6 of the act provides for the registration of dealers and section 16(1)(a) provides that if any person has without reasonable cause failed to get himself registered as required by sub-section (1) of section 6 within the time prescribed, he shall be liable to pay penalty in addition to the fees payable by him a sum not exceeding rs. but in case the dealer is able to satisfy in appeal that he has has not failed to get himself..........any appeal against the aforesaid order, but filed appeal allowed revision application before the board of revenue for rajasthan, ajmer. it was decided by a single member of the board. it was held that as the assessee was aggrieved against the order directing his compulsory registration, he could file a revision application and that the order of imposition of penalty should be treated as only consequential to his non-registration. then the merits of the case were gone into and the learned member came to the conclustion that the assistant sales tax officer had not properly determinded the nature of the goods which the assessee served in his bhojnalaya. the revision application was found selling chapattis, they should be treated as exempted goods under the act as they were covered in the.....
Judgment:

D.M. Bhandari, C.J.

1. The assessee Heeralal carries on the business of serving meals at his Bhojnalaya at Ajmer. The Assistant Sales Tax Officer, Ajmer, by his order dated 16th August, 1955, imposed Appeal allowed penalty of Rs. 11 on the assessee under Section (16)(a) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter called the Act), as in his view the assessee failed to get himself registered as required by Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act. The assessee did not file any appeal against the aforesaid order, but filed Appeal allowed revision application before the board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer. It was decided by a single Member of the Board. It was held that as the assessee was aggrieved against the order directing his compulsory registration, he could file a revision application and that the order of imposition of penalty should be treated as only consequential to his non-registration. Then the merits of the case were gone into and the learned Member came to the conclustion that the assistant Sales Tax Officer had not properly determinded the nature of the goods which the assessee served in his Bhojnalaya. The revision application was found selling chapattis, they should be treated as exempted goods under the act as they were covered in the category of exempted goods, being another form of parantha and puris.

2. On the application of the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer this court directed that the Board of Revenue should make a reference under Section 15(2) of the Act and refer the following two questions to this court:-

(1) Whether in view of the provisions of Section 14 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, the Board of Revenue was wrong in entertaining the revision petition of Heeralal as he could have appealed under Section 13 of the aforesaid Act and he had failed to do so ?

(2) Whether chapatis fall in the category of exempted goods as they fall within item No. 14 of column 2 of the Schedule.

3. This has been done. We first deal with question No. (1). Section 6 of the Act provides for the registration of dealers and Section 16(1)(a) provides that if any person has without reasonable cause failed to get himself registered as required by Sub-section (1) of Section 6 within the time prescribed, he shall be liable to pay penalty in addition to the fees payable by him a sum not exceeding Rs. 100. Section 6(5) of the Act which is material for answering question No. (1) runs as follows:

When any dealer is penalised under Section 16 in respect of any contravention of Sub-section (1), the assessing authority shall, on realising the amount of penalty and the fee, register such dealer and grant him a certificate of registration, and such registration shall take effect as if it had been made under Sub-section (3) on the dealer's application.

4. Section 13 provides that an order imposing a penalty is appealable to the appellate authority. Thus it is clear that any dealer on whom penalty is imposed under Section 16(1)(a) of the Act, has a right of appeal to the appellate authority. Section 6(5) lays down that it is the duty of the assessing authority on realising the amount of penalty and the fee to register such a dealer and grant him a certificate of registration. Thus after the imposition of penalty, the amount of penalty is to be realised and also the fees and then it is incumbent on the assessing authority to register such a dealer. This is what is meant by compulsory registration, the term used by the learned Member of the Board of Revenue. But in case the dealer is able to satisfy in appeal that he has has not failed to get himself registered as required by Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act because he is not a dealer liable to pay tax under the Act, no penalty can be imposed on him and when no penalty can be imposed on him, the assessing authority cannot register him as a dealer. The scheme of Section 6(5) of the Act is that penalty is to be imposed first and after the imposition of penalty, the dealer is to be registered. The learned Member of the Board of Revenue has taken the view that imposition of penalty was only consequential on the non-registration of an assessee. But with respect we may say that it is the other way round. Compulsory registration is consequential to the imposition of penalty. When an appeal lay against the imposition of penalty under Section 13 of the Act, the Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to pass any order and set aside the order of penalty in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 14 of the Act. In Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Jaipur v. Chhaganmal Bastimal of Beawar, D.B. Civil Sales Tax Reference No. 15 of 1968 decided on 22nd October, 1969, we have pointed out that revisional jurisdiction invested in the Board of Revenue under Section 14 of the Act is a limited jurisdiction and can only be exercised if the conditions mentioned in that Section are satisfied. In this view of the matter, our answer to question No. (1) is in the affirmative.

5. In view of this answer to question No. (1) we do not consider it necessary to answer question No. (2).

6. The reference is answered accordingly. No order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //