V. K. SINGHAL, J. - (1.) THIS revision has been filed by the assessing authority under section 15 (1) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, as a reference which has now been converted into the revision. The following two questions have been raised : " (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Board of Revenue was justified in setting aside the penalty imposed upon the dealer under section 16 (1) (e) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954, on the ground that the penalty could not be imposed retrospectively or otherwise ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Circle 'a', Jaipur, was not validly constituted during the assessment period 1965-66 (April 4, 1965 to March 25, 1966 ). " The brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the above two questions are that in respect of the period April 4, 1965 to April 5, 1966, the assessing authority found that certain sales have not been recorded in the return submitted by the assessee. The books of account were seized on September 4, 1967 and September 5, 1967 and the revised return was submitted thereafter. Penalty under section 16 (1) (e) and 16 (1) (i) was levied by the assessing authority. In appeal the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), has held that the penalty under section 16 (1) (i) is not leviable. The revision preferred to a single member of the Board of Revenue was dismissed.
(2.) IN special appeal the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue has held that since there was no validly constituted circle, penalty under section 16 (1) (e) cannot be levied. The submission of Mr. Bafna on behalf of the assessing authority is that the inaccurate particulars in the return have no co-relation with the constitution of the circle and by the Ordinance No. 2 of 1967 which was replaced by Act No. 1 of 1968, the defect of non-fixing of area of jurisdiction of any officer or distribution of business amongst various Commercial Taxes Officers in any circle has been validated. I have considered the matter. The returns are required to be submitted to the prescribed authority and if there is no proper or the prescribed authority then the submission of return cannot be considered in accordance with the provision of section 7 (1) of the Act. The validating Act has validated the assessment and the actions of the various authority but has not created the offence retrospectively nor has mentioned that the returns submitted earlier before the validating Act shall be deemed to be valid returns. A person can be penalised for an offence which was an offence in accordance with the law prevailing at the time when the offence was committed. No doubt the provisions of section 16 (1) (e) were existing and it would have been an offence to submit a return which was false or having inaccurate particulars warranting therein but such return was required to be submitted to the prescribed authority and the return submitted to any person other than the prescribed authority cannot be considered to be valid return. Since there was no valid return, therefore, no penal action can be taken on the basis of such return. In these circumstances the judgment of the Board of Revenue does not require any interference and the revision is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .;