- (1.) This revision petition has been filed by the Revenue against the order of learned Tax Board dated 29.11.2005 dismissing its appeal against the order of Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dated 26.10.2004.
(2.) Both the appellate authorities thus in favour of respondent-assessee held that penalty of Rs.56,790/- could not be imposed on the respondent-assessee under Section 78 (5) of the RST Act, 1994 on account of declaration in Form No. ST-18A as per Rule 53 of the RST Rules, 1995 being found to be incomplete with respect to two commodities, namely, electrical control panel and V-Belts, and said declaration being not available in respect of third commodity, electrical motors imported by the respondent-assessee from the supplier of Gaziabad, within the State of U.P.; which were checked on 04.10.2000 while being transported in vehicle No. HR-38/D/4742 at Border Check Post- Shahjanhapur.
(3.) Learned counsel for the Revenue, Mr. Achintya Kaushik appearing for Mr. R.B. Mathur, relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Guljag Industries Vs. CTO, 2007 7 SCC 269 and State of Rajasthan Vs. D.P. Metals, 2002 1 SCC 279, submitted that learned Tax Board has erred in setting aside the penalty imposed on the respondent-assessee under Section 78 (5) of the Act because the goods in question which were electrical goods covered by the relevant notification No. S. No. F.4 (1) FD/Tax Div/2000-297 dated 30.03.2000 (SO No.374); and therefore, since ST-18A declaration was not either accompanying the said goods, or were found to be blank forms, therefore, the penalty was bound to be imposed on the respondent-assessee in view of the above decisions of the Apex Court. Therefore, the present revision petition of Revenue deserves to be allowed.;