J.P.Bansal, Judicial Member - (1.) THESE three revision petitions which were originally filed before the honourable High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan under Section 15(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (for short, "the Act") against a common judgment dated March 31, 1993 whereby the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer (later Rajasthan Tax Board, for short, "Tax Board") accepted the appeals of the respondents in all the three matters stand transferred to this Tribunal under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995. This is how these petitions have come up before us for disposal. Since they involve the consideration of common questions of fact and law they are being disposed of by a common judgment. Petition No. 100 of 1996 :
(2.) THE respondent -firm is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of marble and granite stone, etc. On November 1, 1990 when the truck No. GJ 02/T 5721 loaded with goods had crossed the check -post at Abu road and was proceeding to Gujarat it was intercepted and checked by the petitioner, Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer (Flying Squad), Raniwara (ACTO). The driver of the truck was asked to produce for inspection the requisite documents relatable to the goods which were being carried in the truck. He produced a GR No. 1 dated October 31, 1990 issued by Delhi -Bombay Roadlines, Abu Road. As per the description given therein the consignor of the goods was Sumit Marbles, Abu Road. There was a bill No. 122 dated October 31, 1990 with regard to 50.31 sq. metres of granite priced at Rs. 34,494.95. When the goods were checked in the light of the details given in the bill it transpired that in addition to the goods for which the bill was produced there were excess goods for which no document was produced. On search being made, the ACTO could lay his hands on two envelopes containing two bills. One bill No. 173 dated October 31, 1990 related to Sri Parashwanath Granites which shall be discussed in the following paragraph. The other bill No. 48 dated October 31, 1990 related to Hindustan Granites, Abu Road, with which we are concerned here at this stage. The bill concerned No. 48 together with bilty No. 02 dated October 31, 1990 was relatable to 15 cartons which contained 150 sq. feet of granite priced at Rs. 4,500. The driver on being asked to explain away this lapse could not give a satisfactory reply. The relevant bill No. 48 dated October 31, 1990 was not produced at the check -post, Abu Road nor were the goods declared there. The goods were seized on November 1, 1990. A notice was issued to the respondent -firm calling upon it to appear before the ACTO on November 16, 1990 to show cause as to why a penalty should not be imposed upon it. On November 1, 1990 the representative of the respondent -firm, Jagdish Agarwal, appeared before the ACTO and filed an application requesting that the goods be released. He expressed his desire to deposit the security amount as may be fixed by the ACTO. An amount of Rs. 1,350 was deposited under protest. The goods were released. On November 16, 1990 he took up the plea that it was a case of failure on the part of the driver of the truck not to make the declaration and to produce requisite documents with regard to the goods. The respondent -firm cannot be held liable for any lapse on the part of the driver. A penalty of Rs. 1,350 was levied. Petition No. 101 of 1996 : Facts of this petition are similar to the facts of the petition No. 100 of 1996 except for minor difference in certain details to be recorded here. The goods for which no declaration was made were relatable to a bill No. 173 and bilty No. 02 dated October 31, 1990 and which were priced for Rs. 47,102.85. On November 1, 1990 the representative of the respondent -firm, Sri Babu Lal, appeared before the ACTO and filed an application requesting that the goods concerned be released. He expressed his readiness to deposit the security amount that may be fixed by the ACTO. An amount of Rs. 14,150 was deposited as security under protest. The goods were released. On November 16, 1990 he took up the position that the driver was at fault. A penalty to the tune of Rs. 14,131 was levied. Petition No. 103 of 1996 :
(3.) THE facts of this petition are similar to those of the earlier two petitions Nos. 100 and 101 of 1996 discussed above except for the difference in details which are recorded here. The goods in this case were being carried in truck No. RNQ 1424. The ACTO on checking found one envelope containing the bill No. 27 dated October 31, 1990 which was relatable to bilty No. 82 dated October 31, 1990. The goods for which these documents were to have been produced and for which no declaration was made were priced at Rs. 29,295. On November 1, 1990 the representative of the respondent -firm, Sri Jagdish Agarwal, appeared before the ACTO and filed an application requesting the release of the goods. He expressed the desire to deposit the amount of security under protest. A sum of Rs. 8,790 was deposited with the department. The goods were released. He also promised to give a satisfactory reply within 15 days. On November 16, 1990 he appeared before the ACTO and took up the plea that it was a case of failure on the part of the driver to produce the requisite bill at the check -post, Abu Road. The ACTO considered the matter and imposed a penalty of Rs. 8,789 on the respondent -firm. The amount was adjusted against the sum of Rs. 8,790 which the respondent -firm had already deposited with the department under protest on November 1, 1990. The assessment orders dated November 16, 1990 were challenged by way of separate appeals before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, who vide his order dated January 7, 1991 dismissed them. The matters were taken up in second appeals before the Tax Board which vide his impugned order dated March 31, 1993 accepted them and set aside the orders of the ACTO dated November 16, 1990 and the orders of Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dated January 7, 1991.;