VINEET KOTHARI - (1.) THE assessee is aggrieved by the order of the Tax Board dtd.25.3.2009, whereby the Tax Board setting aside the order of the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) dtd.19.10.2004 in favor of the assessee allowed the Revenue's appeal and restored the penalty of Rs. 46,500/ - under Section 78(5) of the RST Act, 1995 on the respondent - assessee.
(2.) Aggrieved by the order of Tax Board, the assessee has filed the present revision petition before this Court.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sanjeev Johri, submitted that at the time of checking of the goods in transit on 25.1.2004, 200 tins of oil sold by the assessee to one M/s Raj Trading Company of Sri Ganganagar was found to be accompanied with bilty of truck No. RJ31 -G -5552 along with Bill No. 17155 of 24.1.2004 of petitioner - assessee M/s R.B. Mutha and company, whereas the actual truck carrying the said goods was registered at truck No. RJ - 31/5312 and therefore, upon the said discrepancy in the documents accompanying the goods in transit, the assessing authority invoked the provisions of Section 78(5) of the Act and imposed aforesaid penalty. He submitted that explanation of the assessee before the first appellate authority was that these very goods, namely, 200 tins of Fortune' branch oil was purchased by the petitioner - assessee from local registered dealer M/s Hari Om Company, Jodhpur under his Bill No. 21522 dtd.24.1.2004 which were transported to the present petitioner assessee in truck No. RJ -31/5312 and the same truck along with assessee's Bill No. 17155 dtd.24.1.2004 was sold to M/s Raj Trading Company, Sri Ganganagar, another registered dealer. However, due to bonafide mistake of concerned agent M/s Maheswari Brokers through its manager Sh. Manoj Gandhi, inadvertently name of purchaser was wrongly mentioned as M/s Raj Enterprises and truck number was wrongly mentioned as Truck No. RJ31 -G/5552 in the said invoice No. 17155 dtd.24.1.2004 and accepting this bonafide mistake and explanation of the assessee, the learned Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) had quashed the penalty in question vide his order dtd.19.10.2004.;