ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, FLYING SQUAD, ALWAR Vs. ELECTROLUX KELVINATOR LTD. AND ANOTHER
LAWS(RAJ)-2010-11-68
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on November 26,2010

Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Flying Squad, Alwar Appellant
VERSUS
Electrolux Kelvinator Ltd. And Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Vehicle No. DL-1L/B-6896 was checked by the assessing officer near Shahjahapur Check-post. On production of documents, it was found that declaration form ST 18A was not accompanied with the vehicle/goods. The assessing officer issued show-cause notice to the assessee as to why penalty under section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act of 1994") may not be levied. The assessee filed reply to show-cause notice wherein it was contended that the goods in question were not for the purpose of sale, therefore, declaration form was not required, however, the assessee also submitted declaration form ST 18A along with reply to show-cause notice. The assessing officer was of the view that declaration form should have been accompanied with the vehicle/goods, therefore, there was a breach of section 78(2) of the Act of 1994 and consequently, vide order dated April 8, 1999 levied of penalty under section 78(5) of the Act of 1994.
(2.) Being aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal, which was allowed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated November 24, 2005, on the ground that since the declaration form had been submitted by the assessee before the assessing officer before passing of assessment order along with reply to show-cause notice, therefore, the matter is covered by the judgment delivered by the honourable apex court in State of Rajasthan v. D. P. Metals, 2001 124 STC 611
(3.) Being aggrieved with the same, the assessing officer filed an appeal before the Rajasthan Tax Board, which was dismissed vide judgment dated August 2, 2007, on the ground that the order of assessment was passed against owner of the goods and not against in charge of the goods and matter relates to the period prior to March 22, 2002 when section 78(5) of the Act of 1994 was amended, therefore, no order could have been passed against the owner of the goods, which is under challenge in this revision petition preferred on behalf of the Department.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.