M. B. SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, M/s. Rajdhani Express Transport Company (for short "the transporters") is also having a truck No. RND 2715. It was intercepted on December 8, 1986 near police station, Sodala by the Flying Squad of the Commercial Taxes Department, which was headed by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer. THEre goods worth more than Rs. 5 lacs were loaded and they were not covered by any of the documents, i. e. , goods receipts. A notice was given to the petitioner by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer on December 9, 1986, calling upon the petitioner that only three goods receipts had been filed and no other goods receipts or documents have been filed covering goods which were loaded in the truck and which was seized. THE petitioner was asked to show cause, if any. It was also said that the three goods receipts which were produced, appear to be false. It appears that when proceedings were pending before the assessing authority, the petitioner-transporter filed an application for compounding the case. An order dated January 1, 1987, was made determining the amount of tax as Rs. 19,585 and the compounding fee in the sum of Rs. 50,415. THE petitioner-transporter paid the aforesaid sum, the truck and the goods were released.
(2.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner-transporter was not the owner of the goods and, therefore, he could not be called upon to pay either any tax or the compounding fee and, therefore, the order is without jurisdiction. I find no substance in the writ petition. From the facts which are contained in the notice given to the petitioner-transporter as well as his reply and the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Administration) there appears to be no dispute that when the truck was seized near Sodala, it was loaded with goods and the goods were not covered by any goods receipts. A notice was given to the petitioner-transporter under section 16, sub-section (3) (e) as to why the petitioner be not prosecuted. After the notice the petitioner filed an application that the case may be compounded. The petitioner having taken advantage, having escaped the prosecution, cannot be allowed to say now that the case could not have been compounded under the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (for short "the Act" ). Secondly it will appear from the facts that the three goods receipts which were filed only after the truck was released were found to be fictitious and so far as the other goods are concerned they were not covered by any goods receipts whatsoever. It is common knowledge that all transporters as and when they carry goods in the vehicle, all the goods are covered by one or the other goods receipts. Therefore, the very fact that except three goods receipts which were filed after the truck was released the transporter was not carrying any goods receipt for the rest of the goods is a circumstance which is to be taken into consideration and is and was also taken by the Deputy Commissioner (Administration), Commercial Taxes Department. Under section 22-A and more so its sub-section (6), power is vested in the officer-in-charge of the check-post or any other officer empowered in this behalf, and the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer of the Flying Squad is the officer empowered on their behalf, to seize any goods which are under transport by a vehicle in respect of which the declaration is false or which are not covered by the documents prescribed under sub-section (2) and sub-section (2) of section 22-A prescribes inspection of the record by the in-charge of the check-post and the officer authorised as aforesaid and the record should be relating to the goods carried which are in possession of such driver or other person in-charge who shall, if so required give his name and address and the name and address of the owner of the vehicle and names and addresses of the consignors and the consignees, if any. Under section 16 (9) (b) the case could be compounded by charging the fee which could not exceed more than three times of the tax. Even under section 22-A of the Act and more so its sub-section (7), the compounding fee could be not exceeding 30 per cent of the value of the goods. Viewed from any angle in my opinion, the compounding fee of more than Rs. 50,000 and the tax which was attempted to be evaded cannot be said to be excessive and no case for interference could be made. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed. .;