V. K. SINGHAL, J. - (1.) ALL these revisions are disposed of by this common order as the point involved is identical. The learned Government Advocate Shri Bapna has raised only two points as under : That the levy of interest for delay of less then a month in respect of the period prior to April 7, 1979 has wrongly wrongly been set aside by the Sales Tax Tribunal. The contention of Mr. Bapna is not tenable in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Commercial Taxes Officer v. Hem Raj Udhyog [1987] 64 STC 324 wherein it has been held that prior to the amendment of section 11b of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act with effect from April 7, 1979 the interest could not be charged for delay for a period of less than a month. In view of this decision the judgment of the Sales Tax Tribunal is upheld. (2) That the order of the Sales Tax Tribunal in setting aside the penalty under section 5c (2) is against the principles of natural justice.
(2.) MR. Bapna has contended that the certificate of registration was amended by the assessing authority with effect from August 1, 1963, as per his order dated May 17, 1971 and the writ petition against the said order is pending in the High Court. The stay granted has been vacated. The assessee has purchased certain items as raw materials and he was asked to produce the manufacturing stock register or any other record from which the purchases against C form or S. T. 17 form would have been ascertained and it could have been found as to how much the goods have been transferred to the benches and when such particulars were not submitted the assessing authority has levied the penalty under section 5c (2 ). Even before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) the details were not furnished and he has remanded the case to the assessing authority to examine the matter afresh. The assessee instead of furnishing the information, approached the Sales Tax Tribunal by way of second appeal and there an affidavit was submitted by the assessee with statement of purchases. The affidavit submitted by the assessing authority was not considered as it was verified by Notary Public. Mr. Bapna has pointed out that because of the strike of the Advocates including the Oath Commissioners and Notary Public the affidavit could not be got verified and in any cases when an affidavit was submitted by the assessee, giving certain figures which were disputed by the assessing authority it was not proper on the part of the Sales Tax Tribunal to delete the penalties when the assessing authority has not verified the correctness of the figures given in the affidavit. Mr. Sharma on behalf of the assessee has pointed out that the figures were submitted in a detailed sworn affidavit and the same has been relied upon the Sales Tax Tribunal, therefore, in revision this Court should not interfere. I have considered the arguments of both the parties and I am of the view that when a dispute is raised by the assessing authority about the correctness of the figures which even the Sales Tax Tribunal has not mentioned in its order to have verified at its level, it was not proper for the Sales Tax Tribunal to knock down the penalties without giving the reasonable opportunity to the assessing authority. In these circumstances the order passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal is quashed and the matter is remanded to the assessing authority to take the fresh proceedings de novo where the assessee may produce the books of account and get the figures verified as submitted before the Sales Tax Tribunal and the assessing authority thereafter may proceed in accordance with law. The revisions partly allowed. No order as to costs. Petitions partly allowed. .;