ORDER : By the Court (Per, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldeep Mathur): 1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for seeking the following reliefs: “i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the official respondent No. 1 to 3 be directed to permit the petitioner-Company to file appeal under Section 82(2) of the Act of 2003 against the order passed by the assessing authority, respondent No. 3 dated 20.01.2017 before the appellate authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur. (ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to declare the petitioner-company as the person interested as provided under Section 76(7) of the Act of 2003 so as to file an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur against the order dated 20.01.2017 passed by the respondent No. 3, assessing authority. (iii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the delay in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned and the respondent No. 2 may kindly be directed to permit the petitioner-Company to file appeal and to condone the delay while deciding the appeal on merits of the case.” 2. The facts, as pleaded in the nut-shell, are that the petitioner is a public limited company registered under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner- company is engaged in the manufacturing and export of over-head High Tension Power Transmission Conductor made from aluminum and aluminum alloys. M/s KEC Bikaner-Sikar Transmission Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur (respondent No.4) placed an order No.16000027/BH/00150 dated 16.08.2016 to the petitioner- company for supply of aluminum conductors manufactured/exported by it. In furtherance of the aforementioned order, the consignment was sent by the petitioner- company to respondent No.4 through a transport vehicle i.e. truck bearing registration No.RJ19-GB-5838 belonging to M/s East India Transport Agency, Athola. When the truck carrying goods/conductors (Cable Drum) was in transit, the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti-Evasion Division, Abu-Road, District Sirohi- respondent No.3 intercepted it and upon checking the vehicle it was found that the goods were being transported without the VAT-47 form as required under rule 53 of the Rajasthan VAT Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 2003’). The vehicle was thereupon seized by respondent No.3 to assess the levy of tax upon the goods in transit as per section 26 of the Rajasthan VAT Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2003’). The petitioner- company has pleaded that respondent No.3, after conducting seizure proceedings had not issued any notice to the petitioner- company. The notice was issued to respondent No.4 as contemplated under Section 76 of the Act of 2003. Respondent No.4 did not take any interest to get the goods (Cable Drum) and the truck released and consequently the proceedings continued before respondent No.3 as per the provisions of the Act of 2003. Finally, an assessment order dated 20.01.2017, imposing a penalty of Rs.9,37,310/- came to be issued against respondent No.4, thereby holding that the company had failed to comply with the provisions contained under Section 76(2)(b)(c) read with section 79(1) of the Act of 2003 and rule 53(iii) under the Rules of 2003. However, since the declaration form of VAT-47 was required to be sent as a part of the total documents appended alongwith the consignment of goods/conductors (Cable Drum) in the truck bearing registration No.RJ19-GB-5838, the petitioner- company being in default, paid the amount of penalty to the tune of Rs.9,37,310/- by submitting a demand draft No.013483 dated 04.02.2017. Only upon depositing the said amount of the penalty, the truck and the goods were released. It has further been pleaded that the entire assessment proceedings conducted against the petitioner- company were duplicitous. The petitioner- company, in these circumstances filed an application dated 04.02.2017 before respondent No.3 stating inter alia that the company being the consignor of the goods (Cable Drum) may be permitted to participate in the assessment proceedings as contemplated under Section 76(3) of the Act of 2003. The application dated 04.02.2017 came to be rejected by respondent No.3 vide order dated 16.02.2017 solely on the count that the assessment order in question was passed on 20.01.2017 and the application had been filed after conclusion of the assessment proceedings. It was further held in the order dated 16.02.2017 that the application preferred by the petitioner-company for impleadment as a party in the case, on the ground of it being an interested party, could not be entertained once the assessment proceedings are already over/stood concluded. 2. It was further held in the order dated 16.02.2017 that the application preferred by the petitioner-company for impleadment as a party in the case, on the ground of it being an interested party, could not be entertained once the assessment proceedings are already over/stood concluded. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that respondent No.3 has seized the truck bearing registration No.RJ19-GB-5838 as the mandatory requirement of declaration form VAT-47 to be appended with the goods in transit was not fulfilled, however, no notice was ever given to the petitioner- company about the seizure proceedings. The petitioner- company supplied all the relevant documents to respondent No.4 as soon as the information of seizure of truck containing the goods came to its knowledge, however, still the assessing authority imposed the penalty as per the provisions of Section 76(6) of the Act of 2003 vide order dated 20.01.2017. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that respondent No.3 ought to have initiated proceedings under the Act of 2003 against the consignor and not the consignee as it is the duty of the consignor to make the form VAT-47 a part of the documents to be sent alongwith the vehicle carrying the goods. 3. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the action of respondent No.3 in rejecting the application filed under Section 76(7) of the Act of 2003 vide order dated 16.08.2017 deserves to be declared illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable for the reason that the petitioner- company is not only the aggrieved and interested party in the case but has also deposited the amount of penalty levied by respondent No.3. The rejection of the application for impleadment as a party filed by the petitioner- company under Section 76(6) of the Act of 2003 would amount to denial of an opportunity of hearing and thus denial of right to file an appeal against the order passed by the assessing authority under Section 82(2) of the Act of 2003. It was thus prayed that the petitioner-company may be permitted to file an appeal before the appellant authority against the order dated 20.01.2017 passed by the assessing authority. To substantiate his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner- company has placed reliance on the following judgments: “I.) “Indian Aluminium Co. It was thus prayed that the petitioner-company may be permitted to file an appeal before the appellant authority against the order dated 20.01.2017 passed by the assessing authority. To substantiate his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner- company has placed reliance on the following judgments: “I.) “Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax” : Income-tax Reference No.9 of 1981 (II.) “Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bengal Card Board Industries and Printers (P.) Ltd.” : Incone-tax Reference No.111 of 1978 (III.) “Gopi Lal v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi and Rajasthan” reported in AIR 1967 P&H 505 ” 4. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the goods (Cable Drum) is a notified item and is a taxable commodity and therefore it is a mandatory condition to produce declaration form VAT-47 alongwith a bill and Bilty at the time when the goods are in transit. Learned counsel though did not dispute the fact that no notice of seizure was issued to the consignor i.e. petitioner- company by the assessing authority however submitted that ample opportunities of being heard so also to produce the relevant documents were provided to respondent No.4. The respondent No.4, however, failed to submit any reply to the show cause notices issued to it by the assessing authority. 5. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that as per the provisions contained in Section 76(7) of the Act of 2003, an interested person though can be impleaded as party during pendency of the proceedings before the assessing authority, however, in the present case, the application for impleadment as party was filed by the petitioner- company only after eighteen days from the conclusion of the assessment proceedings and the passing of the impugned penalty order dated 20.01.2017; and therefore the said application had rightly been rejected. He thus prayed that the present writ petition may be dismissed being devoid of any merits. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at bar and perused the material available on record. 7. The relevant statutory provisions are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- (a) Section 26 of the Act of 2003: “26. He thus prayed that the present writ petition may be dismissed being devoid of any merits. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at bar and perused the material available on record. 7. The relevant statutory provisions are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- (a) Section 26 of the Act of 2003: “26. Escaped assessment.– (1) An assessment – (a) of a person who is liable to get registration but has not got himself registered; or (b) in which, for any reason, the levy of tax or any fee or sum payable under this Act has been escaped wholly or in part; or (c) wherein tax has been wholly or in part unassessed or under–assessed in any way or under any circumstances, shall be deemed to be an escaped assessment and the assessing authority or the officer authorized by the Commissioner, shall on the basis of the material on record or after making such enquiry as it may consider necessary, complete such assessment within the time limit provided in sub– section (3). Explanation.– (1) *** (2) Where the Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner (Administration) has reason to believe that a dealer has escaped assessment to tax in any manner provided in sub–section (1), he may at any time, subject to the time limit specified in sub– section (3), either direct the assessing authority or the officer authorized by the Commissioner, to assess the tax or the fee or other sum or himself proceed to assess the same. (3) No notice under sub–section (1) shall be issued after the expiry of five years, and no assessment under this section shall be made after the expiry of eight years, from the end of the relevant year. (3A) Not withstanding anything contained in sub-section (3), where any proceeding relating to an assessment is subject to adjudication before the Tax Board or a competent court or any other authority under this Act, assessment in such matters may be passed within two years from the final adjudication of such proceedings. (4) The assessment, if any, already made shall be subject to the assessment made under this section.’’ (b) Section 82 of the Act of 2003: “82. (4) The assessment, if any, already made shall be subject to the assessment made under this section.’’ (b) Section 82 of the Act of 2003: “82. Appeal to the appellate authority.– (1) Subject to the provisions of section 86, an appeal against any order of an Assistant Commissioner, a Commercial Taxes Officer, an Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer or Junior Commercial Taxes Officer or Incharge of a check–post or barrier shall lie to the appellate authority. (2) The appeal shall be presented within sixty days of the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated; but the appellate authority may admit an appeal even after the said period of sixty days if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the said period. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub–section (4) of section 38, no appeal under this section shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by a satisfactory proof of the payment of tax and other amounts admitted by the appellant to be due from him or of such installment thereof as might have become payable and in case of an appeal from an ex-parte assessment order, five percent of, and in other cases ten percent of the [“disputed tax amount"]. (4) Notwithstanding that an appeal has been preferred to the appellate authority, the tax or any other sum shall, subject to the provisions contained in sub–sections (4) and (5) of section 38, be paid in accordance with the order against which appeal has been preferred. (5) The appeal shall be in the prescribed form and shall be verified in the prescribed manner. (6) The following shall have the right to be heard at the hearing of the appeal, – (a) the appellant, either in person or by the authorized representative; (b) the authority or officer against whose order the appeal has been preferred either in person or by a representative. (6) The following shall have the right to be heard at the hearing of the appeal, – (a) the appellant, either in person or by the authorized representative; (b) the authority or officer against whose order the appeal has been preferred either in person or by a representative. (7) The appellate authority may, before disposing of any appeal make such further enquiry as it thinks fit, or may direct the assessing authority or the officer against whose order appeal has been preferred to make further enquiry and report the result of the same to the appellate authority and in disposing of the appeal the said authority may,– (a) in the case of an order of assessment, interest or penalty,– (i) confirm, enhance, reduce or annul the assessment, interest or penalty; or (ii) set aside the order of assessment, interest or penalty and direct the assessing authority to pass fresh order after such further enquiry as may be directed; and (b) in the case of any other order, confirm, cancel, vary or remand such order. (8) The appellate authority shall send a copy of the order passed by it to the appellant, the assessing authority or such authority against whose order the appeal has been preferred, the Deputy Commissioner (Administration) concerned and the Commissioner.” (c) Section 83 of the Act of 2003: “83. Appeal to the Tax Board.– (1) An appeal shall lie to the Tax Board against – “(a) an order passed by the Commissioner under subsection (2) of section 26, section 36, section 77 or section 85; (b) an order passed under the Act by the Deputy Commissioner (Administration); (c) an order passed by an “appellate authority; and” (d) an order of the State Level Screening Committee or the District Level Screening Committee passed under the Incentive, Exemption or Deferment Schemes notified under section 8 or under sub–section (3) of section 20 of the Act. (2) Any person aggrieved by any order referred to in sub–section (1), may file an appeal before the Tax Board within ninety days of the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to him in writing. (2) Any person aggrieved by any order referred to in sub–section (1), may file an appeal before the Tax Board within ninety days of the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to him in writing. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub–section (2), the Commissioner or a Deputy Commissioner (Administration) authorized specially or generally by the Commissioner may, if aggrieved by any order referred to in sub–section (1), direct any officer or Incharge of a check–post or barrier to file an appeal before the Tax Board and such officer or Incharge shall file such appeal under his signatures within one hundred and eighty days of the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated in writing to the Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner (Administration). (4) The respondent may, on receipt of notice that an appeal against an order referred to in sub– section (1) has been preferred by the appellant, notwithstanding that he may not have appealed against such order, within one hundred and twenty days in the case of an officer of the Commercial Taxes Department and within sixty days in the case of a dealer, of receipt of the notice, file a memorandum of cross–objections verified in the prescribed manner, against any part of the said referred order and such memorandum shall be disposed of by the Tax Board as if it were an appeal within the time specified in sub–section (2) or (3). (5) The Tax Board may admit an appeal or permit the filing of memorandum of cross– objections after the expiry of the limitation provided in sub–section (2), (3) and (4), if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not presenting the same within that limitation. (6) An appeal to the Tax Board shall be made in the prescribed form and shall be verified in the prescribed manner. (6) An appeal to the Tax Board shall be made in the prescribed form and shall be verified in the prescribed manner. (7) The Tax Board, during the pendency of an appeal before it, shall not stay any proceeding but it may, on an application in writing from the dealer, stay the recovery of the disputed amount of tax or any other sum or any part thereof on the condition of furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of the assessing authority or the officer authorized by the Commissioner in this behalf; and the amount found ultimately due shall be subject to interest from the date it became first due, in accordance with the provisions of this Act “: “Provided that no security under this section shall be required to be furnished by a department of the Central Government or the State Government or a public sector undertaking, corporation or company owned or controlled by the Central Government or the State Government." (8) Notwithstanding that an appeal against an order has been preferred to the Tax Board, the tax or any other sum shall be paid in accordance with the order against which appeal has been preferred, unless recovery of such tax or any other sum has been stayed by the Tax Board. (9) The Tax Board shall, with the previous sanction of the State Government, make, by notification in the Official Gazette, regulations consistent with the provisions of this Act and the rules made there under for regulating its own procedure and the procedure of the benches thereof in all matters arising out of the exercise of its powers or the discharge of its functions; however, until the regulations are made, the Tax Board shall, subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made there under, have power to regulate its own procedure and the procedure of the benches thereof in all matters arising out of the exercise of its powers and discharge of its functions. (10) The Tax Board shall, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such order thereon as it thinks fit and send a copy thereof to the appellant, the assessing authority, the authority whose order was appealed against and the Commissioner.” 8. (10) The Tax Board shall, after giving both the parties to the appeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such order thereon as it thinks fit and send a copy thereof to the appellant, the assessing authority, the authority whose order was appealed against and the Commissioner.” 8. In the instant case it is not disputed that the impugned order of assessment has been passed by respondent No.3 exercising the power vested in it by virtue of Section 26 of the Act of 2003. It is also not in dispute that an order of assessing authority can be challenged by ‘any person’ under Section 82 of the Act of 2003 before the appellate authority. The record of the present case indicates that the petitioner- company being the consignor of the goods (Cable Drum) was mandatorily required to attach the declaration form of VAT-47 with the vehicle carrying the goods in transit. Upon a perusal of the record of the case, it also surfaces that the assessing authority neither gave any notice nor information to the petitioner- company regarding seizure of the goods and initiation of proceeding against respondent No.4. 9. The petitioner- company herein is denying its liability to be assessed in terms of Section 26 of the Act of 2003. Once the petitioner- company has denied its liability to be assessed under the provisions of the Act of 2003, it would be covered by the expression ‘any person aggrieved’ used under Section 83(2) of the Act of 2003. The term ‘any person aggrieved’ should be given the widest possible import and thus would not confine only to the parties which contested the proceedings before the assessing authority. Hon’ble High Court of Punjab in the case of Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax : Income-tex Reference No.9 of 1981 was pleased to hold that the statutes pertaining to right of appeal have to be given a liberal construction since they are remedial. A right of appeal will not be restricted or denied unless such a construction is unavoidable. Our Courts recognize a rule that an appeal of a cause is a valuable right to the litigant and, in the absence of unmistakable indications to the contrary, statutes regulating appeals are to be given a liberal construction. A right of appeal will not be restricted or denied unless such a construction is unavoidable. Our Courts recognize a rule that an appeal of a cause is a valuable right to the litigant and, in the absence of unmistakable indications to the contrary, statutes regulating appeals are to be given a liberal construction. It is also recognized that appeal is a remedy that is favored in law and is an important right, which should never be denied, unless its forfeiture or abandonment is conclusively shown and in case of doubt, an appeal is always to be allowed than denied. 10. Resultantly, the instant writ petition is allowed. The petitioner- company is permitted to file an appeal against the order dated 20.01.2017 passed by the assessing authority-respondent No.3 under Section 82(2) of the Act of 2003 within a period of two months from the date of this Order. In case an appeal has already been filed by the petitioner- company, the same shall be decided by the appellate authority on merits while condoning the delay in filing of the same. 11. No order as to costs.