ASSTT COMMISSIONER Vs. KRISHNA INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Sales Tax Revision is directed against the order passed by Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer in Appeal No. 353/96/st/jodhpur dated 10. 2. 98 rejecting appeal filed by the Assistant Commissioner Taxes, Officer Jodhpur and against the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) Commercial Taxes, Jodhpur dated 14. 3. 95. The Deputy Commissioner set aside the order of levy of tax by way of penalty for breach of second proviso of Rules 25c of Rules framed under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. It was found by the Board that though the assessee was in error in furnishing a joint declaration for more than one transaction of sale but the breach being of technical nature, essential conditions to give benefit of the exemption having been fulfilled, the penalty can not be levied. In coming to this conclusion the Board has relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Commercial Taxes Officer, Pali vs. Kanhayalal Mohanlal (1 ).

(2.) THE facts as found by the Board and about which there is no dispute are that the assessee had obtained a purchase order from the buyer dated 1. 7. 91 placing an order for supply of 65 Matric Tonnes of Rape-seeds. In pursuance of the contract the goods were supplied between 11. 7. 91 to 21. 2. 92. About this transaction a declaration was furnished in form ST-17 for the purchase of a sum of Rs. 19,95,483. 39/-Paisa for resale within the State. THE said declaration was furnished in terms of Rule 25c of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules. THE said declaration was submitted with return. However, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the declaration being delayed, as well as a joint declaration in respect of more than Rs. 2 lacs of purchase were not permitted the condition of second proviso Rule 25c was breached, therefore, the assessee is liable to pay penalty equal to the tax on the said amount along with interest. In this connection it need to be noticed that in the first instance the Assessing Officer has found that sales amounting the total Rs. 43,80651. 09 paisa were claimed to be exempted under Rule 25c but are not supported by declarations and consequently disallowing the claim for exemption, and levied tax on the said turn-over along with interest u/s. 11-B of the Act. By first rectification order dated 30. 9. 94 he had accepted declarations of assessee filed in respect of three items about which ST forms has been produced consisting of Rs. 5,20,243/-, 1,21,445/-& 1,98,982. 35/-paisa. As against the balance a declaration form ST-17 No. S-11 492 for a sum of Rs. 19,95,483. 39 paisa was not accepted because it was for an aggregated sum exceeding Rs. 2 lacs and was covering period of more than six months. On this basis the sum of purchase covered by ST-17 No. ST-492 amounting to Rs. 1995483. 39 paisa were subjected to tax and interest. However, when it was pointed out that after allowing exemption against three forms balance of disallowed claim was only Rs. 179650/-and not Rs. 1995483. 39 paisa, the amount of disallowed ST form, because of duplicaty of purchase bill for Rs. 198952. 35 paisa. Declaration of this amount was included in ST-17 form for Rs. 1995483/-as well as separate declaration for the said purchase was also filed and accepted. Yet another rectification order was made on 25. 3. 95 correcting this mistake and computation of tax and interest was confined to the turn-over of Rs. 17,96,51. 04 paisa only. In short, it can be said from the orders that ultimately the claim of the assessee under Rule 25c in respect of turn over of Rs. 17,96,501. 04 paisa was not accepted by the Assessing Officer on the ground that declaration in ST-17 form in respect of such transactions did not conform to the requirement inasmuch as more than one transaction aggregating in more than Rs. 2 lacs could not be covered under one declaration and that one declaration could not be made in respect of aggregated transactions during a period of more than six months.

(3.) FIRST coming to the additional supportive contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent. Relevant part of r. 25-C reads as under:- " [25c. Furnishing of declaration-[ (1) A dealer who is entitled to and (i) exemption from payment of tax; or (ii) payment of tax at a concessional rate, (a) on sales made to a registered dealer of goods taxable at the last point for the purpose- (i) re-sale within the State; or (ii) sale in the course of Inter-State trade or commerce; or (iii) sale in the course of export out of the territory of India; or (iv) sale outside the State; (b) on the sale of any raw material eligible for concessional rate of tax, under section 5c; or (c) on sales of any such goods as may be exempted from tax, on the condition of furnishing declaration; shall in respect of each such sale, obtain a declaration from the purchasing dealer in Form S. T. 17 and shall along with the return under rule 25, file all declaration obtained as aforesaid and also submit a separate list of such sales in form S. T. 16; [provided that all declaration obtained as aforesaid shall be filed by the dealer before or at the time of assessment unless earlier required by the assessing authority; Provided further that no declaration shall cover more than one transaction except where the total amount covered by one declaration does not exceed [rs. 2 lac] for all the transaction in [six months. ]"