- (1.) THIS is a revision against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Appeals, Udaipur dated 25. 4. 61. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was assessed for the period from 23. 10. 57 to 10. 11. 58 and a penalty of Rs. 600/- was imposed on him for non-submission of the returns. The said penalty was reduced in appeal by the Deputy Commissioner to Rs. 300/-vide his impugned order dated 25. 4. 61. Against this order of the Deputy Commissioner the petitioner has come up in revision before the Board of Revenue.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that no penalty can be imposed on them because the rules under Rajasthan Sales Tax Act were not in force during the assessment period viz. 23. 10. 57 to 10. 11. 58. He has cited Tulsiram Pannalal vs. State of Rajasthan (RLW 1961 p. 363) in which it has been held that no person can be convicted of any offence except for a violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence. This prohibition against post facto legislation which involves the imposition of a penalty is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, as such for the purpose of sec. 16 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act the rules cannot be given retrospective effect and the order of the recovery of penalty cannot be sustained. The learned Government Advocate has argued that as per sec. 7 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act it was incumbent upon the dealer to have submitted his returns in the prescribed form for the prescribed period, and as the petitioner did not furnish the returns he was liable to pay penalty imposed by the appropriate authority. I have heard both the counsel for the parties and gone through the entire record. The learned Government Advocate has conceded that the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules were not in force during 23. 10. 57 to 10. 11. 58. As such it was not possible for the petitioner to have furnished the prescribed returns, in prescribed form for prescribed period. The ruling of Rajasthan High Court reported in RLW 1961 p. 363 is abundantly clear on the point. No person can be convicted of an offence except for violation of law in force at the time of the commission of the act. Since the form of return was not prescribed and since the rules were not in force, it was not possible for the petitioner to have submitted the return. Hence the revision is accepted and the penalty imposed on the petitioner is set aside. .;