- (1.) M/s. Rambilas Bhojnalaya's revision petition arises out of the order passed by the Asstt. Sales Tax Officer, Ajmer dated 16. 8. 1965. whereby he held the petitioner liable to registration as a dealer under sec. 6 (1) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and imposed a penalty of Rs. 11/- for his failure to do so under sec. 16 (1) (a) of the same Act.
(2.) THE petitioner's contention was that he runs a Dhaba which is different from a restaurant and sells puri, parantha, and chapatis at a consolidated price. Under sec. 4 (1) of the Rajasthan Sells Tax Act and at item 14 of the Schedule the goods which the petitioner sells are exempted such as Bhujiyas, puris and pranthas. Chapati is only a form of puri and parantha. THE counsel for the respondent's reply was that as penalty was imposed appeal lay against this penalty and no revision should be entertainable. This reply by the Government Advocate of the respondent has no substance. THE revision has been filed against the order of the Asstt. Sales Tax Officer imposing petitioners liability to registration. THE imposition of penalty was only consequential. THE petitioner is therefore aggrieved against the order of imposing his compulsory registration and therefore this revision is clearly maintainable. The other reply of the Advocate of the respondent was that in the statement of the petitioner it will be seen that he provides food and milk to the customers in his Dhabha. Food i. e. Khana which he has deposed in the statement may consist of other goods than those goods which are given in the exemption schedule. He therefore contends that the order of the Asstt. Sales Tax Officer is no doubt vague and required redetermination and he would have no objection if this order is set aside and the case is sent for redetermination. I have considered the arguments advanced from both sides and seen the record. The liability to registration has been imposed upon the petitioner on the ground that he provides, for sale, goods other than those exempted from sales tax under the schedule and has obtained no exemption certificate from the appropriate authority. The statement of the petitioner as replied to by the Advocate on behalf of the respondent clearly mentions that the petitioner provides milk and Khana for sale. Milk is no doubt an exempted commodity ; but Khana may consist of other things, consisting of other articles of food than those which are exempted. In view of this I find that this matter has not at all been properly determined by the Asstt. Sales Tax Officer as to the goods which the petitioner provides for sale in his Dhaba. If the petitioner only restricts his supply of goods which are exempted under the Sales Tax Act then his liability to registration does not arise; but in case he indulges into sale of articles, other than those which are exempted, then no doubt he is liable to be registered unless he obtains an exemption certificate. The term 'khana' which the petitioner provides to his customers has not been properly determined by the Asstt Sales Tax Officer. His order is completely vague on this point and therefore, results in improper exercise of jurisdiction. It deserves to be set aside. The counsel for the petitioner also contends that on the basis of this order the petitioner has been assessed to sales tax on various commodities. In view of the fact that the initial order of the petitioner was vague and bad in law, the liability to assessment on the point of registration does not arise and the previous assessment orders if any made by the assessing authority are no doubt invalid. In case the petitioner is found selling Chapatis, which is clearly covered in the list of exempted goods and is only a form of parantha and puri, he is certainly not liable to sales tax. I, therefore, accept this revision petition of the petition, set aside the order of the Asstt. Sales Tax Officer on the ground that it is vague. However there would be no objection if the respondent makes a proper and fresh enquiry in this matter as to the liability of the petitioner for registration on the ground that he sells goods other than those which are exempted and pass fresh orders after giving the petitioner a full opportunity of being heard. .;