- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on April 16, 1999 Vehicle No. HR-47/4298 was checked and it was found that declaration form ST-18A was not accompanied with other relevant documents of the goods. Therefore, a notice to show cause was given to the respondent as to why penalty may not be levied under section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred as, "the Act"). The respondent filed written reply to the notice, wherein the mistake for not producing the declaration form ST-18A of the Act was admitted. Since declaration form ST-18A of the Act was neither accompanied with the goods at the time of checking of the vehicle nor was it produced in response to show-cause notice, therefore, assessing officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 35,230 under section 78(5) of the Act.
(2.) Being aggrieved with the same, the assessee preferred an appeal, which was allowed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) on two grounds; first is that assessing officer has not proved the mens rea on the part of the assessee to evade the tax and second, is that matter relates to the period prior to March 22, 2002, therefore, order could not have been passed against owner of the goods and it could have been passed only against incharge of the vehicle/goods. Being aggrieved with the same, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Tax Board, which was dismissed vide judgment dated April 3, 2007, which is under challenge in this revision petition preferred on behalf of the Revenue.
(3.) Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that admittedly declaration form ST-18A of the Act was not produced at the time of checking of vehicle and subsequently along with reply to show-cause notice before the assessing officer. Therefore, penalty under section 78(5) of the Act was rightly imposed by the assessing officer. So far as second ground for setting aside the penalty order by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Rajasthan Tax Board that penalty order could not have been passed against the owner of the goods as matter was relating to the period prior to March 22, 2002 is concerned, the same is contrary to the decision of the honourable apex court in the case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Bajaj Electricals Ltd.,2008 18 VST 436 Therefore, this revision petition be allowed and orders passed by both the appellate authorities be set aside.;