JUDGMENT The Appellate Tribunal has de­cided three appeals as filed by M/S Tina Sanjeev Verma under Section 73 of the VAT Act. Appeal No. 1 has been dismissed whereas appeal Nos. 2 and 3 have been allowed. Three applications, one by Tina Sanjeev Verma and other two by Commissioner Sales Tax, have been filed requiring the Tribunal to refer to the High Court the question of law arising out of its order in the afore­said three appeals. Tribunal agreeing thereon has drawn up the statement of facts and has formulated the ques­tion of law and referred to this Court for final determination. In nutshell, the background of the case is:- 2. Tina Sanjeev Verma (hereinafter referred to as the appellant), admittedly is resident of Ansal Palam Vihar, Gurgaon Haryana, while travelling in a private motor car carrying golden or­naments, entered the State of Jammu & Kashmir crossing Check Post at Lakhanpur on 15.06.2005. While en­tering into the Valley of Kashmir, she had also crossed the Check Post at Lower Munda, neither she had been in­tercepted nor she had declared that she is carrying the golden ornaments. While reaching to Srinagar, she stayed in Hotel Grand Palace Room No. 2108. 3. Commissioner Commercial Taxes appear to have received an informa­tion, about the appellant's stay in Room No. 2108 of Grand Palace Hotel possess­ing some unaccounted for goods with intent to evade tax, has vide his order No. Camp/PA/CCT/325 dated 19.06.2005, authorized, under Section 66(3), Shri K. H. Rizvi, Additional Com­missioner, to inspect the premises and also to take action under Section 66(6) of the Act, if necessary. The Additional Commissioner on 19.06.2005, on in­spection, found the appellant in posses­sion of gold ornaments without any document. The goods were seized, statement of the appellant was re­corded, the weight of the ornaments was found to be 35 kgs. and 600 m.grams, inventory of the ornaments was prepared and the goods were de­posited in the Sadar Treasury, Srinagar. 4. The Additional Commissioner ini­tiated proceedings under Section 66(6), 69(1)(o) and 67(10) of the VAT Act, and asked CTO Circle "F" Srinagar to as­certain value of the ornaments after market survey. The value of orna­ments, on such survey, was worked out as Rs. 2, 15, 22, 960.00. The Additional Commissioner imposed penalty of Rs. 4,30,459.20 under Section 66(6) with further penalty of Rs. The value of orna­ments, on such survey, was worked out as Rs. 2, 15, 22, 960.00. The Additional Commissioner imposed penalty of Rs. 4,30,459.20 under Section 66(6) with further penalty of Rs. 4,30,459.20 under Section 69(1)(o) and also passed order, in terms of Section 67(10), asking the appellant to furnish security to the tune of Rs. 53,80,740.00. 5. All the said three orders were chal­lenged by the appellant before the Ap­pellate Authority (Commissioner Com­mercial Taxes) under Section 72 of the VAT Act. All the three appeals were dis­posed of by the said Authority vide its detailed order dated 28.04.2006. Dur­ing the pendency of the appeals, it was projected by the counsel for the appel­lant that the value of the ornaments has been assessed on the higher side without due regard to the purity of the ornaments. At her request, from amongst the approved evaluators of the Income Tax Department, Shri Manak Chand of M/S Nikka Mai Jewellers, Ludhiana, was appointed as evaluator vide order dated 23.1.2006. The said evaluator had submitted his report on 08.02.2006 stating therein that the value of the ornaments is Rs. 1, 93, 77, 678.00 (one crore ninety-three lac sev­enty seven thousand and six hundred seventy eight). 6. The Appellate Authority, after no­ticing all the pleas as were raised, has dealt with all the three appeals sepa­rately. While dealing with appeal per­taining to the order passed under Sec­tion 66(6) of the VAT Act, has opined that Section 66(6) is applicable to un­accounted for goods of a registered or an unregistered dealer. The appellant did not possess any purchase invoices or any books required to be maintained in ordinary course of business when she, admittedly, was in possession of the goods which are taxable in nature and on her own showing those goods were meant for sale in the Valley after market survey, therefore, Additional Commissioner was justified in passing order under Section 66(6) of the Act. He was authorised by the Commissioner Commercial Taxes, therefore, order of penalty, passed by the Additional Com­missioner, has been maintained. 7. He was authorised by the Commissioner Commercial Taxes, therefore, order of penalty, passed by the Additional Com­missioner, has been maintained. 7. While dealing with the order passed under Section 69(1)(o) of the VAT Act, it had been contended by the appellant that she was not aware of the tax pro­cedures of the State, where ever she would sell the goods, she would issue proper invoices, the goods were not carried in a public transport, it was her first adventure to explore market out­side her native State, she is not an of­fender, she had unknowingly crossed the Check post, penalty under Section 69(1)(o) of the VAT Act could not be passed by the Additional Commissioner because he was specifically authorized by the Commissioner under Section 66(3) and 66(6) of the Act. 8. The Appellate Authority, while repelling the aforesaid contentions, has opined that the appellant, admittedly, had carried the gold ornaments for market survey. She is supposed to be aware about the sales tax procedure, which are almost similar throughout the Country, especially with the intro­duction of VAT regime. Her motive was to hoodwink the authorities to evade the tax, therefore, there is no reason­able cause offered for the default in declaring the carrying of goods at the Check posts. Then Appellate Authority has opined that under Section 69(1)(o) of the VAT Act, the "appropriate author­ity" to impose penalty has not been de­fined. The said Section corresponds to Section 17(1) of the J&K GST Act, 1962, where "appropriate authority" has been defined. In the present VAT Act, when "appropriate authority" is not defined, then in terms of earlier legislation of J&K GST Act, 1962, the definition has to be imported so as to mean that the authority seized with the jurisdiction is to be treated as "appropriate author­ity". Since the Additional Commis­sioner was seized with the jurisdiction, therefore, he is to be treated as "ap­propriate authority". 9. While dealing with the order passed under Section 67(10) of the VAT Act, it had been contended by the counsel for the appellant that applicability of Sec­tion 67(10) has come to an end once the person has crossed the Check post. Since the Additional Commis­sioner was seized with the jurisdiction, therefore, he is to be treated as "ap­propriate authority". 9. While dealing with the order passed under Section 67(10) of the VAT Act, it had been contended by the counsel for the appellant that applicability of Sec­tion 67(10) has come to an end once the person has crossed the Check post. Sub-section (10) of Section 67 provides that where taxable goods are trans­ported, the officer Incharge of the Spe­cial Investigation Unit (SIU) or notified area of check post or barrier or any of­ficer authorized under sub-section (4) shall detain and seize the goods, un­less security is furnished in the pre­scribed form for an amount equal to double the amount of tax leviable on such goods or 25% of the value of goods, whichever is higher. The said security has to be adjusted against the tax, pen­alty, interest fee or any other sum that may be payable by such dealer. The learned Appellate Authority has treated Additional Commissioner as an authorized officer under sub-section (4) of Section 67 of the VAT Act, on the strength of authorization order of the Commissioner Sales Tax, where-under Additional Commissioner has been authorized to conduct inspection and also to act under Section 66(3) and 66(6) of the VAT Act. 10. The Appellate Authority has also opined that the Commissioner vide notification No. 5 of 1988 dated 24.9.1988, had authorized officers to exercise the powers under sub-section (4) of Section 67, in terms whereof, Deputy Sales Tax Commissioner, Srinagar, is also an authorized officer. Since Deputy Sales Tax Commissioner has been re-designated as Additional Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Admn.) on 26.4.2005, therefore, Addi­tional Commissioner was impliedly authorized to exercise powers under sub-section (4) of Section 67 of the Act. 11. Then Appellate Authority has opined that the powers of the autho­rized officers under Section 67(10) of the Act are not restricted to Check post or Notified Area only. It is also opined that subsequently appellant got regis­tered as dealer with effect from 18.7.2005. Finally has concluded that the Additional Commissioner was jus­tified in demanding security under Section 67(10) of the Act. The quantum of penalty imposed under Section 66(6) of the Act, in view of valuation of the goods, proportionately has been re­duced from Rs. 4,30,459.20 to Rs. 3,87,553.56, similarly under Sec­tion 69(1)(o) quantum has been reduced from Rs. 4,30,459.20 to Rs. 3,87,553.56. Finally has concluded that the Additional Commissioner was jus­tified in demanding security under Section 67(10) of the Act. The quantum of penalty imposed under Section 66(6) of the Act, in view of valuation of the goods, proportionately has been re­duced from Rs. 4,30,459.20 to Rs. 3,87,553.56, similarly under Sec­tion 69(1)(o) quantum has been reduced from Rs. 4,30,459.20 to Rs. 3,87,553.56. Likewise, quantum of security de­manded under Section 67(1) has been reduced from Rs. 53,80,740.00 to Rs. 48, 44,419.50. "(a) Dissatisfied with the appellate order, the appellant filed another ap­peal under Section 73 of the VAT Act before the State Sales Tax (Appellate) Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). The Tribunal has main­tained the order as passed under Sec­tion 66(6) of the Act but has reversed the orders passed under Section 69(1)(o) and 67(10) of the VAT Act. With regard to order passed under Section 69(1)(o) of the Act, the Tribu­nal has opined that under Section 67 of the Act, the Government had to set up checkposts at different places for regulating the passage of goods across such notified area. This Sec­tion is applicable when the goods are in transit or being transported. In the instant case, goods have already crossed the checkposts and were not in transit or being transported nor were lying in any godown of trans­port agency at the time when the same were seized by the Additional Com­missioner. The goods were recovered from the place of temporary stay of the appellant in a hotel at Srinagar, therefore, provisions of Section 67 of the VAT Act are not attracted. Then while referring to the order passed under Section 69 of the Act, the learned Tribunal has opined that pen­alty can be levied for any default by the "appropriate authority" which has not been defined in the VAT Act. Tak­ing aid of Section 17(1)(o) of J&K GST Act, 1962, the "appropriate authority" has been defined as the "Assessing Authority" having jurisdiction over a case to make assessment or any other authority seized with the jurisdiction in respect of other proceedings, as has been noticed by the Appellate Authority-Commissioner Commercial Taxes. The "appropriate authority" is the person who can assess such goods for tax under the Act. The As­sessing Authority, according to the Tribunal, is CTO. The "appropriate authority" is the person who can assess such goods for tax under the Act. The As­sessing Authority, according to the Tribunal, is CTO. The Additional Commissioner was authorized by the Commissioner to inspect the goods, the documents and to seize the same, if found necessary under Section 66(3) and 66(6) of the Act, therefore, Additional Commissioner could not be said to be an "appropriate authority" nor was he authorized to impose pen­alty for any default under Section 69 of the Act. In the same background, order of the Additional Commissioner passed under Section 69 and also the order of the Appellate Authority has been set aside. (b) While referring to the order passed under Section 67(10) of the Act, the Tribunal has observed that the sei­zure of the gold ornaments has been made under Section 66(6) and not under Section 67 of the VAT Act. The Additional Commissioner had no ju­risdiction to seize the goods and to demand security because Section 67(10) empowers the officer incharge of the Special Investigating Unit (SIU), notified area or check post or any other officer authorized under sub­section (4) of Section 67 of the Act. The Additional Commissioner does not fall within said categories. The Commissioner (Appellate Authority) has wrongly assumed that the Addi­tional Commissioner is authorized officer as falling within the category as enumerated under sub-section 4 of Section 67. Resort to the provisions of Section 104 of the Act is of no help because under J&K Sales Tax Act, notification dated 24.09.2988 has been issued by the Commissioner whereby Deputy Sales Tax Commis­sioner, Srinagar has been authorised to exercise power under sub-section (3) of Section 15-A of the Act in re­spect of Kashmir Division. In the in­stant case, power has been exercised by Additional Commissioner, he was not an authorized officer, therefore, demanding of security from the ap­pellant has been held illegal, said order was also found to be unjusti­fied and without jurisdiction, as such, set aside. (c) Finally, appeal No. 1/VAT/Trib/Sgr of the appellant has been dis­missed where as other two appeals arising out of orders passed under Section 69(1)(o) and 67(10) have been allowed and orders set aside". 12. (c) Finally, appeal No. 1/VAT/Trib/Sgr of the appellant has been dis­missed where as other two appeals arising out of orders passed under Section 69(1)(o) and 67(10) have been allowed and orders set aside". 12. The appellant Tina Sanjeev Verma filed an application under Sec­tion 75 of the VAT Act contending therein that Section 66(6) of the Act would not apply to her case because: She is not a dealer under the Act; no specific charge was framed in the case; maximum penalty has been im­posed." 13. In the application field by the Commissioner Commercial Taxes, it has been projected that: "Section 66(6) is applicable as the appellant had brought the gold orna­ments for sale. In relation to Section 69(1)(o), it has been projected that the appellant had failed to declare goods at check posts, Additional Commissioner was compe­tent and having jurisdiction to impose penalty for the default. In connection with Section 67(10), it has been pro­jected that the Additional Commis­sioner has acted within his jurisdic­tion, he was competent to seize the goods." 14. The Tribunal after considering the aforesaid applications, filed by the rival parties, has formulated following questions of law arising out of its order:- "Whether on the facts and circum­stances of the case, this Tribunal has been justified in law in confirming the order of imposition of penalty u/s 66(6) of the J&K VAT Act 2005. Whether on the facts and circum­stances of the case, this Tribunal was correct in holding that the Addl. Com­missioner, Commercial Taxes (Admn.) Kashmir Division, Srinagar, has no jurisdiction to exercise powers under the provisions of Section 67(10) and 69(1)(o) of the J&K VAT Act, 2005. Whether on the facts and circum­stances of the case, this Tribunal was correct in holding that the learned Addl. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Admn.) Kashmir Division, Srinagar is not 'appropriate author­ity' under Section 69 of the Act. Whether on the facts and circum­stances of the case, this Tribunal is correct in holding that section 67 of the Act is applicable where the goods are transported within state and are in transit or being transported or lying in any godown of transport agency at the time of seizure only. Whether on the facts and circum­stances of the case, this Tribunal is correct in holding that the security cannot be demanded where the pen­alty has already been levied under the provisions of the Act". Whether on the facts and circum­stances of the case, this Tribunal is correct in holding that the security cannot be demanded where the pen­alty has already been levied under the provisions of the Act". Question (a): Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, this Tribunal has been justified in law in confirming the order of imposition of penalty u/s 66(6) of the J&K VAT Act 2005. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant (Tina Sanjeev Verma) that the appellant is not a dealer un­der the Act, is without any substance. Section 66(6) of the VAT Act is self-ex­planatory. Section 66(3) and 66(6), for the facility of reference, is reproduced here-under:- “66. Production and inspection of accounts and documents and search of premises. (1).......... (2).......... (3) If the Commissioner has rea­sons to believe that any dealer is attempting to evade payment of any tax under the Act, and that anything necessary for purposes of investigation into his liability may be found in any accounts, reg­isters or documents he may for reasons to be recorded in writing, by a written order, authorize any officer not below the rank of In­spector of the Commercial Taxes Department to seize such ac­counts, registers or documents as may be necessary. Upon such seizure an inventory of such account books, registers and other docu­ments seized shall be prepared and a copy thereof shall be fur­nished to the dealer before their removal from the place where they are seized. He shall retain the same only for so long, as may be necessary for examination thereof and for prosecution". (4).......... (5).......... Upon such seizure an inventory of such account books, registers and other docu­ments seized shall be prepared and a copy thereof shall be fur­nished to the dealer before their removal from the place where they are seized. He shall retain the same only for so long, as may be necessary for examination thereof and for prosecution". (4).......... (5).......... (6) If the Commissioner or any of­ficer not below the rank of Assess­ing Authority authorized under sub-section (3), during the course of inspection of any office, shop, godowns, vehicle or any other place of business or any building or place of dealer or any other per­son or at any other place, finds any goods which are not ac­counted for by the dealer or such other person in his account books, maintained in the ordinary course of business, the Commis­sioner or the authorized officer, shall have the powers to seize such goods and levy a penalty which shall be equal to double the amount of tax payable on such goods deeming the invoice value or market value thereof, which­ever is higher, as sale price: PROVIDED that before levy of penalty the affected person shall be given an opportunity of not less than 7 days, unless there are reasons to be recorded in writing for giving a shorter notice, to prove to the satisfac­tion of Commissioner or the au­thorized officer that the goods are properly and fully accounted for in the said account books. A certified copy of the order of pen­alty or withdrawal of the order of seizure of goods, as the case may be, shall be issued to the said person: PROVIDED FURTHER that in case penalty is levied the goods for the value equal to the amount of penalty shall not be released unless the amount of penalty is paid or a security in prescribed form is furnished". 15. Plain wording of the sub-section would suggest that any goods which are not accounted for by the dealer or such other person in his account books maintained in the ordinary course of business, the Commissioner or the authorized officer shall have the pow­ers to seize such goods and levy a pen­alty which shall be equal to double the amount of tax payable on such goods. 16. 16. In the instant case, the question whether the appellant is a dealer or not, in view of the words employed in Section 66(6) of the VAT Act "or such other person" takes into its sweep not only the dealer but other person. When admittedly appellant was carrying huge quantity of gold ornaments and had come up for market survey, she was required to possess some documents or account books, normally maintained in the ordinary course of business, her contention that she had not sold, as yet, any portion of the goods so as to main­tain account books, is irrelevant be­cause she was otherwise required to possess documents. 17. Additional Commissioner, ad­mittedly, was authorized by the Com­missioner, Commercial Taxes, under sub-section (3) of Section 66 of the VAT Act and in case need arises, then to take action under sub-section (6) of Section 66 of the VAT Act. 18. Stringent provisions as incorpo­rated in the Statute books so as to en­sure that the party/dealer shows trans­parency to the satisfaction of the au­thorities that tax leviable shall not, in any way, be evaded, have to be adhered to strictly so that contravention may not get chance of encouragement or may not have implication of sending a signal that the stringent provisions only remain on the statute book and are never meant for implementation. (I) The imposition of penalty has to be the way it is prescribed. The penalty as prescribed in sub-section (6) of Sec­tion 66 of the VAT Act has to be equal to double the amount of tax payable on such goods. The Additional Commis­sioner (Authorized officer) has imposed the penalty of Rs. 4,30,459.20/ which has been worked out on the basis of tax leviable on the value of goods but be­fore the first Appellate Authority (Com­missioner Commercial Taxes), the goods were got evaluated and found to be of the value of Rs. 1, 93, 77, 678.00 as against the valuation worked out by the authorized officer amounting to Rs. 2, 15, 22, 960.00. The first Appellate Authority has accordingly assessed the amount of tax leviable and then has reduced the amount of penalty as im­posed by the Additional Commissioner from Rs. 4, 30, 459.20/ to Rs. 3, 87, 553.56/. 1, 93, 77, 678.00 as against the valuation worked out by the authorized officer amounting to Rs. 2, 15, 22, 960.00. The first Appellate Authority has accordingly assessed the amount of tax leviable and then has reduced the amount of penalty as im­posed by the Additional Commissioner from Rs. 4, 30, 459.20/ to Rs. 3, 87, 553.56/. (II) The Tribunal, while dealing with the question of dealer, has referred to the definition of dealer as appear in Section 2(xi) of the Act and has rightly concluded that the word "dealer" also takes into its sweep any person who carries on business, regularly or oth­erwise. While applying the said defini­tion, the appellant, admittedly, on her own showing before the first Appellate Authority has stated that she had come along with golden ornaments for mar­ket survey, means she is dealing in the business and had got a huge quantity for sale, therefore, she cannot escape the liability of penalty, as has been imposed. The imposition of penalty has been rightly maintained, both by first Appellate Authority and by the Tribu­nal. The question (a) shall accordingly stand determined. Question (b), (C) and (d) are interlinked so taken together for determination: Question (b) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, this Tribu­nal was correct in holding that the Addl. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Admn.) Kashmir Division, Srinagar, has no jurisdiction to exer­cise powers under the provisions of Section 67(10) and 69(1)(o) of the J&K VAT Act, 2005. Question(c) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, this Tribu­nal was correct in holding that the learned Addl. Commissioner, Com­mercial Taxes (Admn.) Kashmir Divi­sion, Srinagar is not 'appropriate au­thority ' under Section 69 of the Act. Question (d) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, this Tribunal is correct in holding that section 67 of the Act is applicable where the goods are transported within state and are in transit or being transported or lying in any godown of transport agency at the time of seizure only. 19. Section 67 of the VAT Act has an objective. Establishment of check posts and inspection of goods in transit is to ensure that the tax leviable, on the goods, is not evaded. Section 67 empow­ers the concerned authorities, as re­flected in the Section itself, as to how the transport of the goods shall be moni­tored and strictly checked. 19. Section 67 of the VAT Act has an objective. Establishment of check posts and inspection of goods in transit is to ensure that the tax leviable, on the goods, is not evaded. Section 67 empow­ers the concerned authorities, as re­flected in the Section itself, as to how the transport of the goods shall be moni­tored and strictly checked. Powers un­der sub-section (10) of Section 67 have been invoked by the Additional Com­missioner where-under appellant has been asked to furnish the security for an amount equal to double the amount of tax leviable. The said power has to be exercised by the officer incharge of the Special Investigation Unit or noti­fied area or check post or any officer authorized under sub-section (4). In the present case goods have been trans­ported but neither appellant has de­clared carrying of goods at the check posts nor she seem to have been in­tercepted, so has succeeded in carry­ing the goods to Srinagar where she stayed in a hotel room. 20. The question is as to whether Additional Commissioner had jurisdic­tion to pass order under Section 67(10) of the VACT Act. The answer has to be no because Section 67 will operate when the person carrying the goods declares that he is in possession of such goods and shows some invoices or other documents or if he does not declare so, the officer incharge, as mentioned in sub-section (10), if found that taxable goods are transported, shall have power to ask the concerned to furnish the security. Once the per­son, without any interception or with­out declaring carrying of goods, has reached to the destination, Section 67 will not apply, then it can be a case of default. The view of the Tribunal to the said effect is justified. The appellant's ordinary place of residence i.e. room in hotel Grand Palace where she had stayed, was inspected, so properly pro­ceedings, in accordance with Section 66 of the VAT Act were initiated and there from it has emerged that the ap­pellant had committed a default as she had not declared carrying of goods at Check posts, one at Lakhanpur and another at Lower Munda, while enter­ing into the State of Jammu & Kash­mir. Such kind of default has to be dealt with in accordance Section 69(1)(o) and Section 69(1)(s)(xiii). Same reads as under:- "69. Defaults. (1)if any person.— (a)…………….(n)…………. Such kind of default has to be dealt with in accordance Section 69(1)(o) and Section 69(1)(s)(xiii). Same reads as under:- "69. Defaults. (1)if any person.— (a)…………….(n)…………. (o)fails to get the vehicle or goods cleared at the Check Post estab­lished under section 67 without a reasonable cause. 69(1)(s)(xiii)for default specified in clause (o) a sum of rupees five thousand if the goods are of non-taxable nature or exempt from payment of tax and double the amount of tax payable on such goods if the goods are taxable". 21. The plain wording of clause (o) would provide that if a person without reasonable cause fails to get the ve­hicle or goods cleared, he shall be deemed to have committed default and for such default, "for taxable goods" he shall be liable to the penalty i.e. double the amount of tax leviable on such goods. The appellant while responding to the notice had projected that she was not aware about the tax laws ap­plicable in the state of Jammu 85 Kash­mir, she had no idea to declare the car­rying of goods at two Check posts but the said explanation has not been ac­cepted, rightly so, by the first Appellate Authority. A person dealing in taxable goods has to be aware about the tax re­gime, by one pretext or the other, the person cannot be given chance to give slip to the law and to evade the imposi­tion of penalty. The explanation offered has been rightly rejected by the Appel­late Authority. Ignorance of law is no excuse. No cause, what to speak of jus­tified cause, has been offered by the appellant for not declaring goods (golden ornaments) worth crores of rupees, which she was carrying for market sur­vey and sale to Kashmir. 22. Whether Additional Commis­sioner was competent to impose the penalty under Section 69(1)(s)(xiii). Section 69(1)(s) provides that for de­fault, penalty shall be imposed by the "appropriate authority", who is the said "appropriate authority" has not been defined in the Act, as has been noticed by the learned Tribunal. 23. 22. Whether Additional Commis­sioner was competent to impose the penalty under Section 69(1)(s)(xiii). Section 69(1)(s) provides that for de­fault, penalty shall be imposed by the "appropriate authority", who is the said "appropriate authority" has not been defined in the Act, as has been noticed by the learned Tribunal. 23. The Appellate Authority (Com­missioner, Commercial Taxes), while referring to Section 17(1)(o) of the J&K GST Act, 1962 read with Section 104 of the VAT Act, has opined that "appropri­ate authority" under Section 17(1)(o) of the J&K GST Act has been defined as "Assessing Authority" having jurisdic­tion over a case to make assessment or any other authority seized with the jurisdiction in respect of other proceed­ings. In short, it has been contended that since Additional Commissioner was seized with the jurisdiction in re­spect of other proceedings, i.e. proceed­ings under Section 66 of the VAT Actas such, he was an "appropriate author­ity". Section 104 of the VAT Act enu­merates transitional provisions. Sec­tion 104(2)(c) is relevant to be quoted: "any order or notification issued by the Commissioner for delegat­ing any power or conferring any jurisdiction under the Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act, 1962 or the rules made thereun­der to any person appointed by any designation, under sub-sec­tion (2) of Section 3 of the said Act before the appointed day shall, with effect from such appointed day, continue to be in force until the Commissioner amends, varies or rescinds such order or notifica­tion after the appointed day". 24. The wording employed would in­dicate that in case Commissioner has delegated powers under J&K General Sales Tax Act or rules to any person appointed by any designation, under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, that shall continue to be in force until Commissioner amends, varies or rescinds such order or notification af­ter the appointed day. 25. Notification bearing No. 5 of 1988 dated 24.9.1988 has been issued by the Commissioner Sales Tax, where-under, amongst others, Deputy Sales Tax Commissioner, Srinagar, for Kashmir Division has been authorized to exercise the powers under sub-section (3) of Section 15-A of J&K General Sales Tax Act, 1962. 25. Notification bearing No. 5 of 1988 dated 24.9.1988 has been issued by the Commissioner Sales Tax, where-under, amongst others, Deputy Sales Tax Commissioner, Srinagar, for Kashmir Division has been authorized to exercise the powers under sub-section (3) of Section 15-A of J&K General Sales Tax Act, 1962. Firstly, in the notifica­tion reference is to power under sub­section (3) of Section 15 of GST Act whereas in Section 104(2)(c) reference is to sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, means the notification has not been issued under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the GST Act, then sec­ondly in the notification it is Deputy Sales Tax Commissioner who has been delegated powers not the Additional Commissioner. No doubt, powers of Deputy Sales Tax Commissioner (Admn.) have been upgraded to the level of Additional Commissioner, Com­mercial Taxes but would that be con­strued to mean that the Additional Commissioner, in terms of said notifi­cation, would continue to be the desig­nated officer. There is no such notifi­cation which would show that words "Deputy Sales Tax Commissioner" as appear in the notification, have been substituted by "Additional Commis­sioner, Commercial Taxes". Tribunal has taken the view that "appropriate authority" is the "Assessing Authority" i.e. CTO. The word "appropriate author­ity" has been interpreted to mean a person who can assess tax under the Act. In the instant case "Assessing Authority" is CTO, so it is CTO who can be termed to be an "appropriate author­ity" but Section 104(2)(b) of the VAT Act is relevant to be quoted: "104. Transitional provisions. (1)...... (2) (a)...... (b) any person appointed as Com­missioner or any person ap­pointed to assist the Commissioner under the Jammu and Kashmir General Sales Tax Act, 1962 before the appointed date shall, on and from the appointed day, be deemed to have also been appointed under the Act and shall continue in office as such till such person ceases to be Commissioner or ceases to be the person ap­pointed to assist the Commis­sioner". 26. The wording employed would show that any person appointed to as­sist the Commissioner under the J&K GST Act, 1962, shall be deemed to have been appointed under the Act and shall continue in office as such till such per­son ceases to be Commissioner or ceases to be the person appointed to assist the Commissioner. 26. The wording employed would show that any person appointed to as­sist the Commissioner under the J&K GST Act, 1962, shall be deemed to have been appointed under the Act and shall continue in office as such till such per­son ceases to be Commissioner or ceases to be the person appointed to assist the Commissioner. Section 17(1)(o) of the J&K GST Act assumes greater importance because under the said Act "appropriate authority" has been defined to mean the "Assessing Authority" having jurisdiction over the case to make assessment or any other authority seized with the jurisdiction in respect of other proceedings. In the instant case Additional Commissioner, no doubt, has been authorized so was dealing with the proceedings under Section 66(6) of VAT Act, that falls within the scope of 'other proceedings'. When it is so, the said authority has to be treated as an "appropriate author­ity" for the purposes of Section 69(1)(s) of the VAT Act, therefore, Additional Commissioner was competent to im­pose penalty under Section 69(1)(o) read with Section 69(1)(s)(xiii). Tribu­nal has not appreciated this aspect, so view taken by the Tribunal is not cor­rect. Question (e) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, this Tribunal is correct in holding that the security can­not be demanded where the penalty has already been levied under the provisions of the Act. As concluded above while determin­ing Questions (b), (C) and (d), the Sec­tion 67(10) of the VAT Ac is not appli­cable. Furthermore, Section 69 of the VAT Act does not provide for furnish­ing of the security. However, furnish­ing of security is also provided for in terms of Proviso to sub-section 6 of Sec­tion 66 of the VAT Act. Same is repro­duced here-under: PROVIDED that before levy of pen­alty the affected person shall be given an opportunity of not less than 7 days, unless there are rea­sons to be recorded in writing for giving a shorter notice, to prove to the satisfaction of Commis­sioner or the authorized officer that the goods are properly and fully accounted for in the said ac­count books. A certified copy of the order of penalty or withdrawal of the order of seizure of goods, as the case may be, shall be issued to the said person: PROVIDED FURTHER that in case penalty is levied the goods for the value equal to the amount of penalty shall not be released unless the amount of penalty is paid or a security in prescribed form is furnished". 27. It is clear that when penalty is levied, unless amount of penalty is paid or security in prescribed form is fur­nished, the seized taxable goods shall not be released. Therefore, when amount of penalty is paid, security is not required. 28. On realization of amount of pen­alty imposed under Section 66(6) and under Section 69 of the VAT Act, if not already realized, the gold ornaments seized be released in favour of the ap­pellant Tina Verma. 29. All the three references shall stand accordingly disposed of. The Tri­bunal shall proceed in the matter ac­cordingly. 30. Record of the Tribunal be sent back along with copy of this judgment. Record of the first Appellate Authority be also sent back along with copy of this judgment. ___________