JAIN , J. - (1.) THESE revision petitions have been filed under Section 15 (2), Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (herein after to be called the Act) against the order of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer dated March 11, 1988 by which it has allowed the appeals of the non-petitioners and has set aside the penalty of Rs. 20,000/- each imposed under Section 22a (7) of the Act.
(2.) THE facts of the cases giving rise to these revision petitions may be summarised thus. On June 28,1981 tankers No. MHS 6474 and No. MRL 2465 reached Abu Road check-post. THEy were coming from Bombay. THEir drivers produced transport receipts of Manhas Transport Company, Bombay dated 26th June,1981, bills issued by the non- petitioners M/s Decent Oil Mills, Mazgaon, Bombay and declaration forms 18-A issued by M/s Premier Vegetable Products Ltd. , Jaipur. THEse documents showed the transportation of cotton-seed oil. On checking of the contents of the tankers, it was found to contain crude palm-oil. Notices were issued to the vendor (M/s Decent Oil Mills, Bombay) and to the vendee (M/s Premier Vegetable Products Ltd. , Jaipur ). THEy requested the Incharge of the Sales-tax Check-Post, Abu Road for permitting the tankers to go back to Bombay as the oil contained in them was not as per the orders placed by the Premier Vegetable Products Ltd. , Jaipur i. e. , cotton-seed oil. On furnishing security, their prayer was allowed. After hearing them, the Commercial Taxes Officer, Sirohi imposed penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on each tanker under Section 22-A (7) of the Act as the contents of the tankers did not conform to the aforesaid documents. Appeals were filed by M/s Decent Oil Mills, Bombay (non-petitioner) before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and they were dismissed by common order dated 29. 09. 86. Against this common order dated 29. 09. 86, appeals No. 9 and 10 of 1986 were filed by M/s Decent Oil Mills, Bombay (non-petitioner) before the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, both the. appeals were allowed and penalty was set aside in both cases by the learned Tribunal by its order dated March 11, 1988, holding that there was no justification for imposing penalty in any case as the goods did not enter in and were not delivered in Rajasthan but were taken back to Bombay. Mr. Dinesh Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that admittedly goods contained in the tankers and documents relating to them and produced byh the drivers were checked at the Sales-Tax Check-post, Abu Road, the goods contained in the tankers were not in conformity with the said documents and, therefore, the provisions of Section 23a (7) of the Act were attracted. He further contends that the event attracting penalty took place as soon as the tankers were checked at Sales Tax out-post, Abu Road and the taking away of the goods back to Bombay did not change the postition at all. He further contends that crude palm-oil contained in the said tankers had lesser price than the cotton-seed oil, it was profitable for M/s Premier Vegetable Products Ltd. , Jaipur to use it instead' of cotton-seed oil which was costlier, the documents could not have mentioned the crude palm-oil and in that case the Premier Vegetable Products Ltd. , Jaipur would have been challaned under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Despite service of the notice none has put appearance for and on behalf of the non-petitioner M/s Decent Oil Mills 17-B, Sitabari, Mazgaon, Bombay. There is no alternative but to hear and decide the revision petition ex-parte. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner have great force. It is clear from the order of the Commercial Taxes Officer, Sirohi and Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur that the said tankers were checked at Abu Road (Sirohi ). It is not clear from the impugned order of the Tribunal as to how it observed that goods never entered within the territory of the State of Rajasthan. If the goods would not have entered in to the territory of Rajasthan there could not have been any question of their checking at the Sales-Tax Check-Post, Abu Road. The learned Member, Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribuna, Ajmer has observed that the goods were carried with proper documents i. e. , bills and bilties. This is also not correct. The Tribunal itself has observed that the documents showed that the cotton seed oil was being transported through the said tankers and the tankers on checking were found to contain crude palm-oil. As such it cannot be said that the documents. i. e. , transport receipts, bills and declaration forms conform to the goods which were being transported. Section 22-A (3) specifically requires that the person in-charge of the vehicle shall carry with him the aforesaid documents in respect of the goods carried in or on the vehicle. It is not in dispute that the said documents were not in respect of the crude palm-oil contained in the said two tankers. As such the provisions of section 22a 7 (a) of the Act were attracted and the commercial Taxes Officer, Sirohi was perfectly justified to impose penalty of Rs. 20,000/-in each case. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in confirming these orders and the learned Member of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer seriously erred in setting them aside. The fact that crude-palm-oil contained in the said two tankers was not delivered in Rajasthan has no material bearing in the case. The event attracting the provisions of Section 22a (3) took place as soon as the Tankers had entered into the territory of Rajasthan without the documents conforming to the goods. Under these facts and circumstances, it is difficult to sustain the common order of the Tribunal dated March 11,1998.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY, both the revision petitions ate allowed. The common order of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer dated March 11, 1988 is set aside and the orders of the C. T. O. Sirohi dated February 01, 1982 and of. the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur dated September 29, 1986 are restored. .;