JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner is a manufacturer of edible oils and is running an oil milling industry. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioner purchased oil seeds from dealers for the purpose of manufacturing oil. No sales tax was paid by the dealers in respect of the aforesaid sales of oil seeds, as the petitioner was holding a certificate of exemption issued in accordance with the notification dated April 14, 1955. After manufacturing oil from the oil seeds purchased on the basis of the exemption certificate, the petitioner sold part of the manufactured products outside the State of Rajasthan. But the petitioner did not pay any purchase tax in respect of the quantity of oil seeds, the goods manufactured out of which were sold outside the State. The Assessing Authority, the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle, Jodhpur held in his Assessment order dated October 15, 1956 that the petitioner was liable for payment of purchase tax under Section 5-A of the Act, in relation to the price of the oil seeds, relatable to the quantity of oil exported by the petitioner outside the State. As the petitioner did not disclose the quantity of oil seeds purchased by him, out of which that quantity of oil was extracted which was sold outside the State, the assessing authority made a best judgment assessment, and took the view that the purchase price of such oil seeds may be assessed as Rs. 14 lacs, on which a sum of Rs. 28, 000/- was payable as purchase tax at 2%. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 15, 000/- upon the petitioner by the same order, on the basis of half of the tax determined, under Section 16 (1) (c) of the Act, for the late filing of the return. A further penalty of Rs. 56,000/- was also imposed by the Assessing Authority upon the petitioner under Section 16(1) (e) of the Act, on the ground of concealment of particulars or supplying inaccurate particulars in his return. 2. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) Commercial Taxes, Udaipur, but the appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority by its order dated November 18, 1967. 2. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) Commercial Taxes, Udaipur, but the appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority by its order dated November 18, 1967. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan at Ajmer but the same was also dismissed by the order of the Board dated February 28, 1973. A rectification application filed by the petitioner was dismissed on March 28, 1973 by the Board of Revenue. The present writ petition was then filed in this Court on March 30, 1973 in which the petitioner challenged not only the liability for payment of purchase tax under Section 5-A of the Act, but also the penalties imposed upon him under Section 16(1) (c) and 16 (1) (e) of the Act. 3. A two fold argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of the liability relating to the payment of purchase tax under Section 5-A of the Act. In the first place, it was urged by him that Section 5-A was not attracted to the transactions in question as tax under Section 5 was payable, though not actually paid. In the alternative, it was argued by learned counsel that even if it be held that tax under Section 5 was not payable and as such Section 5-A was attracted to the transactions of purchase of oil seeds by the petitioner, yet the payment of purchase tax under Section 5-A was also exempted by virtue of the notification dated April 14, 1955. So far as the question of late filing of the return is concerned, it was argued that if the purchase tax itself was not payable, no penalty could have been imposed upon the petitioner for alleged late filing of the return. It was lastly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in any event, as the petitioner bona fide believed that purchase tax was not payable, there was no concealment of the particulars nor incorrect particulars were deliberately supplied by him and as such penalty under Section 16(1) (c) could not have been imposed upon the petitioner. 4. Mr. It was lastly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in any event, as the petitioner bona fide believed that purchase tax was not payable, there was no concealment of the particulars nor incorrect particulars were deliberately supplied by him and as such penalty under Section 16(1) (c) could not have been imposed upon the petitioner. 4. Mr. S.C. Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the department, raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner had an alternative remedy available to him of preferring a reference application before the Board of Revenue under Section 15(1) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, but as no reference application was made the writ petition should not have been entertained by this Court. However, learned counsel did not lay much stress upon the objection relating to the existence of an alternative remedy, looking to the fact that the writ petition has remained pending in this Court for almost 10 years and the matter has also been heard by this Court on merits. Mr. Bhandari, however, contended that the case of the petitioner was not that oil seeds were totally exempted from payment of sales tax or that they did not fall within taxable goods, but the case of the petitioner was that because of the exemption allowed by the State Government under Section 4(2) of the Act, particular transactions of sales were exempted from payment of sales tax. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the department that the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act was promulgated with effect from April 1, 1955 and at that time the Act only provided for levy of tax on sale of goods. It was only by the Amendment Act No. 18 of 1960 which came into force with effect from April 1, 1960 that tax was levied on purchase of goods by incorporating Section 5-A; and the notification, which was issued under Section 4(2) of the Act on April 14, 1955, exempting payment of tax on the sales of specified commodities in the contingencies mentioned in that notification, was only applicable to the liability of the seller of such goods in respect of payment of sales tax and it did not extend to the liability of the purchaser from payment of purchase tax, which came to be lead subsequently with effect from April 1, 1960. It was also pointed out that in the beginning purchase tax was levied in respect of seven items including oil seeds only, by the notification dated October 7, 1960 and the exemption in respect of oil seeds purchased for the use thereof in manufacturing oil was granted by the State Government in respect of the purchase tax levied under Section 5-A by means of a separate notification issued on that very day i.e., October 7, 1960. But the general exemption allowed by the notification dated October 7, 1960 was subsequently modified by the notification dated March 26, 1962 in the case of purchase tax, although the exemption allowed by the notification dated April 14, 1955 in the case of sales tax continued until March 2. 1963; when Section 5-C was introduced in the Act, which provides for charging tax at concessional rate on sale or purchase of oil seeds sold for the purpose of converting the same into oil meant for sale within the State or in the course of inter-state trade or commerce. Thus, according to Mr. Bhandari the sales tax was legally payable by the petitioner so far as the period from April 1, 1962 to March 2, 1963 was concerned. On the question of penalty, Mr. Bhandari argued that the petitioner did not disclose the particulars regarding the purchase price of oil seeds which he was bound to specify in Column No. 13 of the Form ST-5 submitted by him for the purpose of assessment of sales tax and purchase tax pertaining to the relevant period and that there was deliberate omission on the part of the petitioner to mention the fact of purchase of oil seeds for conversion into oil, which the petitioner sold out-side the State and he argued that penalty was rightly imposed under Section 16 (1) (e) for concealment of requisite particulars. 5. The Act, as its preamble shows, was enacted initially to provide for the levy of a tax on the sale of goods in the State of Rajasthan and it came into force with effect from April 1, 1955. In Section 2 (r); 'tax' was then defined as meaning the sales tax leviable under the provisions of the Act. Section 3 of the Act provides for incidence of tax while Section 4 provides for exemptions from tax under the Act. In Section 2 (r); 'tax' was then defined as meaning the sales tax leviable under the provisions of the Act. Section 3 of the Act provides for incidence of tax while Section 4 provides for exemptions from tax under the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 4 provides that no tax shall he payable under the Act on the sale of any exempted goods if the conditions specified in the Schedule are satisfied. Section 4 (2) authorises the State Government to exempt from payment of tax the sale of any goods or class of goods or am person or class of persons on such conditions as may be specified. Soon after the promulgation of the Act, the State Government issued a notification under Section 4 (2) of the Act on April 14, 1955, exempting from payment of tax levied by the Act the class of goods which were used in the industries specified in the Schedule. Three conditions were laid clown in the said notification, namely, that the goods were to be sold to a bona fide manufacturer of finished products, who was registered as a dealer under Section 6 (1) of the Act and that such purchaser should give a declaration in writing to the seller that the goods purchased by him would be used in the in manufacture of finished products and further that such purchaser held a valid certificate of exemption issued by the department. Item No. 7 in the said notification dated April 14, 1955 related to the oil milling industry and oil drums, empty tins, steam coal, crude oil and diesel oil as well as oil, crude oil seeds used in the said industry were exempted from payment of sales tax. 6. Section 5 provides for the payment of sales tax under the Act at such rate, as may be specified by the State Government on the taxable turnover of the assessee. 7. As I have mentioned above, the Act was amend d with effect from April 1, 1960 by the Amending Act No. 18 of 1960 so to provide the levy and assessment and collection of purchase tax, besides the sales tax. The preamble of the Act was amended so as to include the levy of tax on the sale or purchase of goods. The preamble of the Act was amended so as to include the levy of tax on the sale or purchase of goods. Similarly, the definition of 'tax' contained in Section 2 (r) was also modified and instead of being restricted to sales tax alone 'tax' was defined as meaning a tax leviable under the provisions of the Act. The two sub-sections of Section 4 were also amended, so as to provide exemption in respect of sales as well as purchase of any goods or persons from payment of sale or purchase tax. A new Section 5-A which provided for payment of purchase tax, was introduced by the Amending Act No. 18 of 1960 and the same runs as under : "5-A. LEVY OF PURCHASE TAX.-Every dealer who in the course of his business purchases such goods, other than exempted goods, as the State Government may by notification in the official Gazette, specify, in circumstances in which no tax under Section 5 is payable on the sale price of such goods and either consumes such goods in the manufacture, of other goods for sale or otherwise or disposes of such goods in any manner other than by way of sale in the State, or dispatches them to a place outside the State except as a direct result of Sale or purchase is the course of inter-State trade or commerce, shall be liable to pay tax on the purchase Police of such goods at the tax on the same rate at which it would have been leviable on the sale price price of such goods under Section 5. Provided that no tax under this section shall be levied on a dealer in respect of any year in which the aggregate of purchase prices of all the goods purchased by him does not exceed five thousand rupees : Provided further that the provisions contained in the first proviso to Section 5 shall apply to the tax leviable under this Section as if for the word 'sale' where ever occurring therein, the word 'Purchase' were substituted." It appears from a perusal of Section 5-A, as it stood at the relevant time, that for the application of that section the following conditions should be fulfilled:- (a) The person who purchases the goods must be a dealer ; (b) The purchase must be made by him in the course of his business as a such dealer ; (c) The goods purchased must be other than the exempted goods i.e. goods exempted under Section 4 (1) of the Act. (d) Purchases of such goods would be taxed, as would be specified by the State Government, by a notification issued in the official gazette. (e) The goods are purchased in the circumstances in which no tax under Section 5 was payable on the sale price of such goods; and (f) The dealer either: (1) consumes such goods in the the manufacture of goods for sale or otherwise, or (2) disposes of such goods in any manner oil or than by way of sale in the State, or (3) dispatches them to a place outside the State, except as a direct result of the sale or purchase in the course of inter State trade or commerce. 8. The tax under Section 5-A can only become payable if all the aforesaid circumstances were cumulatively present and if any one of the aforesaid conditions were not present, the provisions of Section 5-A could not be invoked and purchase tax could not be charged. The two provisions contained in Section 5 and 5-A, when read together, go to show that Section 5-A was introduced in the Act to plug loopholes in the matter of payment of sales tax and in case fur some reason or the other, though the goods purchased were of such nature that the sales or purchases of such goods were liable for payment of sales tax, yet the purchases were made in such circumstances in which no sales tax became payable. For the purpose of illustration in the cases where the goods were purchased by a dealer from an agriculturist or from a non-dealer, sales tax would not be payable, but the purchaser would be liable to payment of purchase tax, if the conditions specified in Section 5-A are fulfilled. Similarly in cases where particular transactions of sale were exempted from payment of sales tax, and goods were consumed in the manufacture of other goods for sale or otherwise or if they are not sold within the State or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce, but were sold outside the State, then the liability of payment of purchase tax arose. 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as goods were exempted from payment of sales tax on account of the notification dated April 4, 1955 issued under Section 4 (2) of the Act, the sales tax though payable but was not paid and, therefore, Section 5-A had no application. The aforesaid contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted for the simple reason that in case the liability to pay tax in respect of the sale or purchase of a particular commodity is there, yet it cannot be said that tax is payable in respect of particular transaction of sale. In (1) State of Tamil Nadu v. M. K. Kandaswami and ors. 1975 (36) STC 191 , their lordships of the Supreme Court while dealing with a similar provision relating to purchase tax, contained in Section 7-A of the Madras General Sales Tax Act, 1959, observed as under:- "The scheme of the Act involves three inter-related but distinct concepts which may conveniently be described as "taxable person", "tax- able goods" and "taxable event". All the three must be satisfied before a person can be saddled with liability under the Act. Nevertheless, the distinction between them, if overlooked, may lead to serious error in the construction and application of the Act." It may be mentioned here that there are two types of exemptions allowed under the Act, namely, exemption allowed under Section 4 (1) and those allowed under Section 4 (2). If the conditions specified in the schedule are satisfied the sale or purchase of any of the exempted goods will not attract liability for payment of tax on account of the provisions of Section 4 (1) of the Act. If the conditions specified in the schedule are satisfied the sale or purchase of any of the exempted goods will not attract liability for payment of tax on account of the provisions of Section 4 (1) of the Act. Thus, in respect of goods specified in the schedule annexed with the Act, there is an absolute exemption and any sale or purchase of the exempted goods is not taxable, either in respect of sales tax or purchase tax. Thus, the sale of such goods is not liable to payment of tax under the Act. Thus, so far as goods mentioned in the schedule are concerned, sale or purchase thereof it totally exempted from the liability to tax under the Act and the goods so exempted are not taxable goods at all, so far as the Act is concerned. In respect of such goods neither sales tax nor purchase tax could be charged. But the exemption allowed under Section 4 (2) of the Act is of a different nature, as there can be a sale of taxable goods by a taxable person, yet, transaction of sale made in the circumstances specified in the notification issued by the State Government is exempted from payment of sales tax. Even if goods are taxable, the particular sale or purchase may not attract payment of sales tax and Section 5-A has been introduced in order to charge purchase tax in such situations where no sales tax is paid, the purchase of such goods has been made taxable under Section 5-A in the hands of the purchasing dealer, if any of the three conditions specified in the last ingredient referred to above is satisfied. In Kandaswami's case (1), their lordships of the Supreme Court pointed out that the liability to pay tax in respect of specified goods and the condition that no tax is payable in respect of particular transaction of sale of taxable goods, are not mutually exclusive and existence of one does not necessarily exclude the other, but both the conditions can co-exist together and in harmony. Thus, the goods may be liable to pay the tax under the Act, yet the transactions of sale may be made in such circumstances or conditions that no sales tax is payable in respect of such transactions of purchase would attract the liability for payment of purchase tax under Section 5-A of the Act. Thus, the goods may be liable to pay the tax under the Act, yet the transactions of sale may be made in such circumstances or conditions that no sales tax is payable in respect of such transactions of purchase would attract the liability for payment of purchase tax under Section 5-A of the Act. It may be remembered that Section 5-A is as much a charging Section as Section 5 and as mentioned earlier, it has been introduced in order to plug leakage of revenue and evasion of tax. In interpreting such a provision, the court should normally take a construction which would not defeat its very purpose or render the same nugtory. 10. In the present case, the petitioner has not denied that he is a dealer registered under the Act and that he had purchased oil seeds from a dealer in the ordinary course of business. It is also not denied that the seller of the goods did not pay any sales tax on the transactions of sale of oil seeds to the petitioner, on account of the fact that an exemption certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner in terms of the notification dated April 14, 1955. Thus sales tax was not payable in respect of such transactions, although the goods were liable to payment of tax under the Act, inasmuch as oil seeds have not been specified as exempted goods and are not included in the schedule annexed to the Act. It is also not denied that the petitioner has consumed the oil seeds purchased by him, as a result of the aforesaid transactions, in the manufacture of oil for the sale and dispatched the manufactured product to places outside the State. Thus, all the ingredients specified in Section 5-A have been duly fulfilled and there is no reason why it could be held that the transactions of purchase of oil seeds by the petitioner would not invoke the provisions of Section 5-A. It may be pointed out that Section 5-A has not been introduced merely for the purpose of charging tax for the purchase of commodities sold by agriculturists or a dealer. but it would apply to sales made under other circumstances as in the case of petitioner. but it would apply to sales made under other circumstances as in the case of petitioner. As a matter of fact no confusion should be created by mixing the question of liability for payment of tax and the question as to whether the tax was payable in respect of the particular transaction of sale. As observed earlier, even though the liability for payment of tax in respect of sale of specified goods may be there, vet the sales may he made in such circumstances that sales tax under Section 5 of the Act may not be payable. As in the present case although edible oils are not included in the list of exempted goods given in the schedule, yet the particular transactions of sale to a dealer, who was a bonafide manufacturer of oil, were exempted from pay cut of sales tax, on the purchaser giving a declaration in writing that the goods would be used in the manufacture of his product and if he holds a valid certificate of exemption, as contemplated in the notification dated April 14, 1955. If the conditions specified in the aforesaid notification are fulfilled, although the goods may be liable to payment of sales tax, yet on the fulfilment of those conditions sales tax was not payable in respect of particular transaction of sale. The following observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in (2) A. V. Fernandez v. The State of Kerala 1957 (8) STC 561 , would make the position clear:- "There is a broad distinction between the provisions contained in the statute in regard to the exemptions of tax or refund or rebate of tax on the one hand and in regard to the non-liability to tax or non-imposition of tax on the other. In the former case, but for the provisions as regards the exemptions or refund or rebate of tax, the sales or purchases would have to be included in the gross turnover of the dealer because they are prima facie liable to tax and the only thing which the dealer is entitled to in respect thereof is the deduction from the gross turn-over in order to arrive at the net turnover on which the tax can be imposed. In the latter case, the sales or purchases are exempted from taxation altogether. In the latter case, the sales or purchases are exempted from taxation altogether. The Legislature cannot enact a law imposing or authorising the imposition of a tax thereupon and they are not liable to any such imposition of tax. If they are thus not liable to tax, no tax can be levied or imposed on them and they do not come within the purview of the Act at all. The very fact of their non-liability to tax is sufficient to exclude them from the calculation of the gross turnover as well as the net turnover on which sales tax can be levied or imposed." Thus, in the case of exemptions of tax, the goods are prima facie liable to payment of tax and the dealer is entitled to deduction from his gross turn-over in respect thereof while calculating the net turn-over, if the conditions specified in the notification are fulfilled. As their Lordships have pointed out, such cases of exemption of tax are distinguishable from cases of exempted goods, the sale or purchases of which is totally exempted from taxation under the Act. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Kerala High Court in (3) T. S. Govindrajulu Naidu v. State of Kerala 1949 (43) STC 233, in support of his contention that Section 5-A was not attracted to his case. But that was a case of total exemption in respect of poly-synthetic gems and following the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Kandaswami's case (1) it was held that there was no liability for payment of tax. It may be observed that the broad distinction pointed out by their Lordships of the Supreme Court between non-liability of tax under the Act and exemption from payment of tax as pointed out in Fernandeze's case (2) must always be kept in view. In Kandaswami's case (l) their Lordships of the Supreme Court also pointed out the same distinction and observed that goods, the sale and purchase of which was totally exempted from tax, are non-taxable goods and such goods cannot be subjected to payment of purchase tax. But those goods which are taxable goods but the sale or purchase thereof was made in such conditions that no sales tax was payable on the transaction of sale would attract the provisions contained in Section 5-A relating to purchase tax. But those goods which are taxable goods but the sale or purchase thereof was made in such conditions that no sales tax was payable on the transaction of sale would attract the provisions contained in Section 5-A relating to purchase tax. As the case before their Lordships of the Kerala High Court related to goods which were exempted from payment of tax altogether and were thus not taxable at all, so the question as to whether the sales were trade in the circumstances in which no tax was payable under Section 5 did not arise in that case. When the goods were not at all liable to payment of tax under the Act, the question as to whether the tax was payable was not required to be considered. As such the decision taken in Govindrajulu Naidu's case (3) is distinguishable and has no application to case before me. 12. Coming to the next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it may be observed that the amendment made in the Act, by the Amending Act No. 18 of 1960 were too far reaching. Before the introduction of Section 5-A and the other amendments made in the Act by the Amending Act No. 18 of 1960, only one tax was chargeable under the Act, namely, the sales tax. Even the preamble to the Act provided for the levy of tax only on the sale of goods. But by the aforesaid amendment, the purchase of goods, was also made liable to payment of tax. Consequently, the definition of 'tax' contained in Section 2(r) was modified and 'tax' was defined as meaning any tax leviable under the provisions of the Act. The two sub-sections of Section 4 were also modified, so as to include not only sales but also purchases in their ambit and under Section 4(2) of the Act the State Government was authorised to issue notifications exempting any goods or persons from payment of tax on sale of purchase, as may be specified in the notification. It is pertinent to note that Section 5-A, as it was inti produced by the Amending Act No. 18 of 1960, was not applicable, to goods on which sales tax was leviable. It is pertinent to note that Section 5-A, as it was inti produced by the Amending Act No. 18 of 1960, was not applicable, to goods on which sales tax was leviable. Initially, purchase tax was imposed on such goods as might be notified by the State Government in the official Gazette and was made subject to other conditions mentioned in Section 5-A. The first notification specifying the goods on which purchase tax was leviable was published on October 7, 1960, which included seven commodities only and one of them was oil seeds. On the same day i.e. October 7, 1960, another notification was issued under Section 4(2), exempting purchase of oil seeds from payment of tax under Section 5-A in case such oil seeds were purchased by a oil milling factory or manufacturer of oil for sale.Thus, the purchase of oil seeds by oil milling factory or manufacturer of oil for the purchase of manufacture of oil for sale was exempted from payment of purchase tax from the very day the tax was levied. By a subsequent notification dated March 26, 1962, the exemption, though continued, was modified and the same was restricted to purchase of oil seeds by a manufacturer of oil if the oil so manufactured was sold by him either within the State or in the course of inter-state trade or commerce. Thus, the exemption was withdrawn by the notification dated March 26, 1962 in respect of purchase of oil seeds in such cases in which the oil manufactured therefrom was sold by the manufacture out-side the State. The last mentioned notification dated March 26, 1962 was later on superseded upon the introduction of Section 5-C in the Act, whereby a dealer who purchased raw materials for the manufacture of other goods in the State and sold the manufactured goods within the State or in the course of inter-state trade or commerce, was made liable to payment of tax on the purchase of taw materials at the concessional rate of 1% of the purchase price of such raw materials. I have compared the notifications issued in respect of oil seeds with those of raw wool, which was also one of the items specified in the notification dated October 7, 1960 and on which purchase tax under Section 5-A was enviable. The notifications in respect of raw wool provided for compare exception on sale or purchase thereof. I have compared the notifications issued in respect of oil seeds with those of raw wool, which was also one of the items specified in the notification dated October 7, 1960 and on which purchase tax under Section 5-A was enviable. The notifications in respect of raw wool provided for compare exception on sale or purchase thereof. However, as I have already referred to above, in the case of nil seeds, the transactions of sale to a manufacturer were exempted after October 7, 1960 from payment of tax upon the, fulfilment of the conditions specified in the notification dated April 14, 1955. But payment of purchase tax in respect of purchase of such commodity was exempted after March 26, 1962 only in such cases where the oil manufactured from such oil seeds was sold by the dealer either within the State or in the course of inter-state trade or commerce As a specific notification was issued on October 7, 1960 and modified in March 26, 1962 in respect of exemption from purchase tax relating to the purchase of oil seeds by manufacturers of oil, it is difficult to hold that the notification dated April 14, 1955, which related only to exemption from tax on the sale of ruck raw material as oil seeds would also include in its ambit an exemption from payment of purchase tax. Under Section 4(2) the power of exemption prior to April 1, 1960 was restricted to the liability relating to the payment of sales tax and, therefore, the notification issued prior to April 1, 1960 under Section 4(2) of the Act would naturally relate to the exemption from payment of sales tax. Such notification cannot by its very nature provide for exemption from payment of purchase tax which was not in existence at the time when the aforesaid notification was issued.Since the purchase tax was introduced with effect from April 1, 1960 and the first notification specifying the goods the purchase of which was chargeable to payment of purchase tax was issued on October 7, 1960, the exemption in respect of oil seeds from payment of purchase tax under Section 5-A was also issued simultaneously. In the presence of two notifications dated April 14, 1955 and October 7, 1960, one relating to sales and the other relating to purchases, it cannot be held that the later notification dated October 7, 1960 was nugatory or render nullity because of the change in the definition of 'tax' given in Section 2(r). Section 2 provides that the definitions given therein have to be read subject to the context and prior to April 1, 1960 tax' meant only sales tax. Thus, the notification issued prior to that date have to be understood in the light of the definition contained in Section 2(r) at the time when the said notification was issued. After an amendment was made in Section 2(r) with effect from April 1, 1960, so as to include within the ambit of the word 'tax' any tax leviable under the Act, the State Government issued a notification under Section 4(2), relating to exemption from purchase tax. The proper way to interprate the provisions of notifications issued under the statute is to read them harmoniously, so far as it is possible to do so and not to read one provision in such a manner as to nullify the other or render the other provision nullity. If the two notifications dated April 14, 1955 and October 7, 1960 can stand together, one referable to the liability in respect of payment of sales tax and the other creating the liability in respect of payment of purchase tax, then it would not be proper to read the notification dated April 14, 1955 in such a mariner as to render the later notification dated October 7, 1960 as completely nugatory and of no effect. Learned counsel for the petitioner suggested that the notification dated October 7, 1960 was issued in order to give a broader exemption in the case of purchase tax doing away with the requirement of having a valid certificate of exemption and of giving a declaration in writing by the purchaser to the effect that goods purchased by him would be used for the manufacture of finished products. I am unable to accept this contention as two notifications on the same subject would rather be confusing. I am unable to accept this contention as two notifications on the same subject would rather be confusing. If the notification dated April 14, 1955 could be interpreted in such a mariner so as to include the exemption from payment of purchase tax within its purview, the State Government would have amended the same if any modification was desired in the condition specified therein instead of issuing a separate notification dated October 7, 1960.In my view, the better view to take is to read the two notifications as relating to sales tax and purchase tax separately and then they can subsist side by side. The notification dated April 14, 1955 should thus be interpreted as to be restricted to the exemptions relating to sales tax, while the notification dated October 7, 1960 relates to exemptions relating to the levy of purchase tax, in respect of the same sale of raw materials made to a dealer, who was a bona fide manufacturer of other goods, from them. 13. There is yet another aspect of the matter. If the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted that the notification dated April 14, 1955 should he considered to be applicable to exemptions both from payment of sales tax as well as purchase tax on account of the amended definition of 'tax' contained in Section 21r) of the Act with effect from April 1, 1960, then after the issuance of a separate notification dated October 7, 1960 relating to exemptions from purchase tax payable under Section 5-A, on the purchase of oil seeds by any oil mulling factory, for manufacture of oil for sale, the earlier notification dated April 14, 1955 should be deemed to have been superseded to the extent it might have related to the payment of purchase tax on the purchase of oil seeds. If the field of operation of the notifications dated April 14, 1955 and October 7, 1960 would be the same or overlapping, so as relating to exemptions from purchase tax, then the earlier notification would necessarily give way to and would be considered to have been superseded by the new notification dated October 7, 1960. If the field of operation of the notifications dated April 14, 1955 and October 7, 1960 would be the same or overlapping, so as relating to exemptions from purchase tax, then the earlier notification would necessarily give way to and would be considered to have been superseded by the new notification dated October 7, 1960. I have already observed that if a proper interpretation is placed upon them, the two notifications can co-exist, as the earlier notification dated April 14, 1955 relates merely to exemptions in respect of payment of sales tax while the later notification dated October 7, 1960 provides for exemptions from payment of purchase tax. But if the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, then the two notifications would overlap the same area of operation and the earlier notification should naturally give way to the obsequent notification on the same subject matter. Thus, even if the argument of the, learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted and it is held that as on account of the change in the definition of tax' in Section 2 (r) of the Act, the notification dated April 14, 1955 should be considered to be applicable to any tax levied under the Act, then it would include sales tax as well as purchase tax within its ambit after April 1, 1960, but on account of the issuance of the subsequent notification dated October 7, 1960, the earlier notification dated April 14, 1955 shall cease to be applicable to exemptions from payment of purchase tax, it is difficult to appreciate that some of the manufacturers engaged in the oil milling industry would have to obtain a certificate of exemption and give a declaration for securing exemption from purchase tax while others can get the benefit of the exemption in respect of tax on the purchase of oil seeds lot the manufacture of oil for sale without obtaining an exemption certificate and without giving a declaration in writing that the goods purchased by them would be used for the manufacture of finished goods. It would not be possible to draw a distinction amongst purchasers of oil seeds who are engaged in manufacturing oils therefrom for sale In this view of the matter, if both the notifications are considered to be applicable also to purchase of oil seeds by oil milling factories for manufacturing oil for sale, then after coming into force of the subsequent notification dated October 7, 1960, the earlier notification dated April 14, 1955 would cease to have any effect, so far as exemptions from purchase tax is concerned. It may be observed that the subsequent notification dated March 26, 1962 by express terms supersedes the earlier notification dated October 7, 1960. Similarly when Section 5-C was introduced by means of an amendment, then by the notification dated March 2, 1963 the notification dated March 26, 1962 was superseded. The notification dated April 14, 1955 held the field until it was also superseded by the subsequent notification dated March 2, 1963. These circumstances also go to show that the notification dated April 14, 1955 was restricted in its operation to exemptions from sales tax by the seller of oil seeds, sale to a bona fide manufacturer engaged in oil milling industry, for manufacture of oil and thereafter the imposition of purchase tax, on the coming into force of Section 5-A, the notifications dated October 7, 1960 and March 26. 1962 related to exemptions from purchase tax in respect of the purchase of oil seeds by manufacturers engaged in the oil milling industry. who used such oil seeds for manufacture of oil for sale. Thus, in any view of the matter, after the notification dated October 7, 1960 was issued, the exemption in respect of purchase of oil seeds by a dealer for manufacture of oil would be governed by that notification and subsequently by the notification dated March 26, 1962, until the latter notification was superseded on March 2, 1963, when Section 5-C came into force. While interpreting the notifications dated April 14, 1955, October 7, 1960 and March 26, 1962. I am undoubtedly conscious of the well established rules of interpretation that in construing fiscal statutes and in determining the liability of a subject to tax, regard must be paid to the strict letter of the law and not merely to the spirit of the statute or substance thereof. I am undoubtedly conscious of the well established rules of interpretation that in construing fiscal statutes and in determining the liability of a subject to tax, regard must be paid to the strict letter of the law and not merely to the spirit of the statute or substance thereof. The subject can be taxed only when the court is satisfied that his case is covered within the four corners of the provisions contained in the taxing statute and that no tax can be imposed or charged from an assessee by inference or by analogy or by trying to probe into the supposed intentions of the legislature or considering the spirit of the legislation. I have applied the rule of interpretation that the notifications existing at the same time should be reconciled and given effect to so far as possible aid that the subsequent notification cannot be ignored to give preference to an earlier notification. Section 5-A, is a charging section and it makes a declaration of liability as to what persons are liable to payment of purchase tax in respect of which goods. The question of exemption from payment of tax must be determined on the basis of the provisions of the aforesaid notifications and it would not be proper to infer, merely on the basis of presumptions or probability that inspire of the fact that the notification dated October 7, 1960 and March 26, 1962 were issued in respect of exemptions from liability of payment of purchase tax relating to purchase of oil seeds, vet the earlier notification dated April 14, 1955 should be construed so as to cover the same field. Moreover, as I have already observed above, even if they are held to be overlapping, then the earlier notification must be considered to have been superseded by the subsequent notification dated October 7, 1960 to the extent of such over-lapping. In this view of the matter, I am of the view that oil seeds purchased by the petitioner for manufacture of oil, in so far as the manufactured oil was sold outside the State and not in the course of inter-state trade or commerce, would not attract the exemption until March 26, 1962, which was made available to such manufacturer on the promulgation of the notification dated March 26, 1962. The exemption in respect of purchase of oil seeds to the manufacturer of oil was available only to the extent that the oil manufactured by him was either sold within the State or in the course of inter-state trade or commerce. The revenue authorities, therefore, appear to be justified in imposing liability for payment of purchase tax under Section 5-A upon the petitioner in respect of purchase of nil seeds relating to the extent the oil manufactured by him was sold outside the State and not in the course of inter- state trade or commerce. 14. Now coming to the question of penalty under Section 16 (1) (c) of the Act, the argument which was advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that although the returns were not filed within the statutory time limit. yet the delay in filing the returns for the four quarters of the year 1962-63, was not the same, yet the Assessing Authority imposed the maximum penalty in respect of each one of the four returns. It is not denied by the petitioner that the return for each quarter should have been filed within 30 days of the expiry of quarter. In the case of each one of the four quarters of the year 1962-63, the delay in filing the return extended from two months to over six months. As the return for each one of the four quarters of the year 1962-63 was filed late, it was open to the Assessing Authority to impose a penalty upon the petitioner under Section 16 (1) (c). No explanation worth the name has been furnished by the petitioner as to why the delay was caused. The Assessing authority as well as the appellate authority have held that the dealer failed to file the returns within time without any reasonable cause, as no lawful explanation to the satisfaction of the taxing authority was given by him. On account of the failure of the petitioner to file the returns within the specified time without reasonable cause, the concerned authorities were justified in imposing penalty under Section 16 (1) (c) of the Act. On account of the failure of the petitioner to file the returns within the specified time without reasonable cause, the concerned authorities were justified in imposing penalty under Section 16 (1) (c) of the Act. So far as the question of quantum of penalty is concerned, this Court would not interfere in its certiorari jurisdiction, particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner failed to give any reasonable or sufficient cause for the delay in filing the returns for all the four quarters of the year 1962-63. 15. As regards the question of imposition of penalty under Section 16 (1) (c) of the Act, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner bona fide believed that the exemptions in respect of purchase tax was also governed by the notification dated April 14, 1955 and as the petitioner was granted exemption certificate relating to the year 1962-63, he bona fide thought that the purchase of oil seeds made by him for manufacture of oil for sale was exempted from payment of sales tax as well as purchase tax, it was submitted that if on a legal interpretation of the various notifications, the assessing authority came to a different conclusion and held that the purchase tax was payable by the petitioner in respect of the purchase of oil seeds used in the manufacture of oil, in so far as the same was sold outside the State, the petitioner did not consciously made any concealment nor there was any intention on his part to avoid payment of tax. It may be pointed out in this connection that so far as the penalty for failure to file returns within time, as prescribed under Section 16 (1) (c) is concerned. once it is found that the return was not filed within the time prescribed by law, the burden of proving reasonable cause for the failure to furnish the return within the prescribed time is upon the assessee but for imposing penalty under Section 16 (1) (c) for concealment of particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars of turnover, mere non-disclosure of particulars of the fact or furnishing of inaccurate particulars is not enough and the burden is cast upon the department to show that there was concealment on the part of the assessee or that the inaccuracy in furnishing of particulars was deliberately made. 16. 16. In (4) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Anwar Ali ( AIR 1970 SC 1782 , while interpreting similar provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1922 their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that the principal object in enacting the provisions relating to penalty was to provide deterrent against recurrence of default on the part of the assessee. It was held in the aforesaid case that the proceedings in respect of imposition of penalty are quasi criminal in nature. Their lordships also observed that the burden was cast upon the department to establish that the assessee was liable for imposition of penalty and even if the explanation given by the assessee in the assessment proceedings is found to be false, it does not automatically follow that he is liable to be saddled with penalty. It may be that the rejection of the explanation given by the assessee in the assessment proceedings as false, may prima facie be sufficient to establish in the penalty proceedings that the assessee did not disclose true and correct particulars or that he supplied inaccurate particulars. But before penalty could be imposed it must also be found that the assessee has consciously concealed particulars in his returns or has deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars. In (5) Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Indore and ors. (1980 S.C.C. (Tax) 64, Bhagwati J., speaking for the Supreme Court, observed as under:- "Now it is difficult to see how the assessee could be said to have filed 'false' returns when what the assessee did, namely, not including the amount of freight in the taxable turnover, was under a bona fide belief that the amount of' freight did not form the part of the sale price and was not ineludible in the taxable turnover .. .... ... .... ... ... ... ... ... This was the reason why the assessee did not include the amount of freight in the taxable turnover in the returns filed by it. Now, it cannot he said that this was a frivolous contention taken up merely for the purpose of avoiding liability to pay tax. .... ... .... ... ... ... ... ... This was the reason why the assessee did not include the amount of freight in the taxable turnover in the returns filed by it. Now, it cannot he said that this was a frivolous contention taken up merely for the purpose of avoiding liability to pay tax. It was a highly arguable contention which required serious consideration by the Court and the belief entertained by the assessee that it was not liable to include the amount of freight in the taxable turnover could not be said to be bona fide or unreasonable." 17. Thus, in order to impose penalty under Section 16(1) (e), it is for the department to show that there was an element of deliberateness in the concealment of particulars, which the assessee failed to supply. If the omission in the return was due to want of care on the part of the assessee or if the assessee furnishes reasonable explanation that he did not include a particular item in the taxable turnover under a bona fide relief that the same was exempted from payment of tax, then it would not be proper to infer deliberateness so as to invite the imposition of penalty. In the present case it may be that the explanation furnished by the petitioner was not accepted by the assessing authority; but if the petitioner could have been reasonably misled on account of various amendments made in the Act in this respect with effect from April 1, 1960, it cannot be held that there was any couscous concealment of particulars on the part of assessee. Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that column No. 13 was left blank by the assessee in form ST-5. That undoubtedly shows that the petitioner entertained the belief that purchase price of oil seeds used by him for the manufacture of oil for sale was exempted from payment of sales tax, on the basis of certificate of exemption issued to him by the department pertaining to year 1962-63 and in such circumstances it cannot be held that the petitioner acted malafide or with the intention of evading or avoiding payment of purchase tax. According to the petitioner, he bonafide believed that when such purchase of oil seeds was exempted from payment of sales tax, it was also to be exempted from payment of purchase tax, as according to him the purpose of giving exemption allowed in respect of sales tax would be frustrated if purchase tax was to be charged. Although on a proper interpretation of the relevant provisions and notifications, I agree with the view taken by the taxing authority, yet I am unable to reject the contention of the petitioner as entirely false or frivolous or intended to have been advanced merely in order to evade or avoid payment of put chase tax. I am, there fore, of the view that the assessee cannot be said to have knowingly concealed the particulars or deliberately supplied inaccurate particulars by his failure to specify in his return the purchase price of oil seeds in relation to the oil manufactured therefrom was sold by him outside the State and not in the course of Inter-State trade and commerce. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as the time of purchasing oil seeds it was not and could not be known to the petitioner as to the oil, extracted from which lot of oil seeds purchased by him, would be sold within the State or in the course of inter-State trade or commerce. It also appears that probably the State Government also realised the difficulty of the manufacturers like the petitioner and so the notification dated March 26, 1962 was replaced by Section 5 C: in the Act and a concessional rate of tax was imposed on the purchase of oil seeds, the oil extracted from which was sold outside the State and not in the course of inter-state trade or commerce. In this view of the matter, I hold that the Assessing Authority as well as the appellate authority and the Board of Revenue were not justified in imposing penalty upon the petitioner under Section 16(1) (e) of the Act and to that extent the order passed by the Revenue authorities is liable to be modified. 18. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed and the orders passed by the respondents Nos. 2 to 4, in respect of imposition of penalty upon the petitioner under Section 16(1) (e) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act is set aside. However. 18. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed and the orders passed by the respondents Nos. 2 to 4, in respect of imposition of penalty upon the petitioner under Section 16(1) (e) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act is set aside. However. the imposition of purchase tax as also the imposition of penalty under Section 16 (1) (c) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act is upheld. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. *******