- (1.) THE case of the petitioner-firm is that when goods i.e. amali dana (Gutkha) were being transported from Delhi to Ahmadabad through Builty No.8747 dated 30.04.2012, the vehicle bearing registration No.RJ-14-2G-9488 was stopped by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti-Evasion, Ward-I, Jhunjhunu for inspection. On inspection being made and the goods under the transportation being found to be suspicious both in respect of the consignor and the consignee, the ACTO, Anti Evasion, Ward-I, Jhunjhunu passed a detention memo qua the vehicle in issue under Section 76(5)(a) of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter 'the RVAT Act, 2003') on 02.05.2012. It has been submitted that thereafter vide order dated 05.05.2012, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why penalty in terms of RVAT Act, 2003 should not be imposed on the market price of the goods in issue. In reply to the said show cause notice dated 05.05.2012, the petitioner-firm filed a detailed reply on 09.05.2012 supported by an affidavit of the Driver regarding the movement of goods in question. In the reply dated 09.05.2012, the notice dated 05.05.2012 was stated to be bad in law, illegal and perverse as the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti-Evasion, Ward-II, Jhunjhunu had allegedly not considered the documents accompanying the goods and was alleged to have initiated proceedings contrary to law. On 09.05.2012, the ACTO, Anti-Evasion, Ward-II, Jhunjhunu is stated to have issued a notice under Section 76(6) read with Section 76(12) of RVAT Tax, 2003 alleging that the consignor firm as also the consignee was found fake and documents being used in the course of transportation bogus.
(2.) ON the matter coming up before this Court today, Mr. R.B. Mathur appearing for the Department has stated that the final order has been passed by the ACTO, Anti-Evasion, Ward-II, Jhunjhunu on 16.05.2012 under Section 76(6) read with Section 76(12) of RVAT Tax, 2003 wherein on the basis of the material gathered by the ACTO, Anti-Evasion, Ward-II, Jhunjhunu in the course of inquiry, it was found that "Gutkha" under transportation was with the intent to evade tax and the goods under transportation were supported by false and fabricated documents and in fact even while purporting to be into transit in the State of Rajasthan, the goods were intended to be supplied within the State of Rajasthan in Nagaur District. Based on the findings arrived at, the ACTO, Anti-Evasion, Ward-II, Jhunjhunu valued the goods under transportation at Rs.11,08,800/- and in terms of power conferred on him under Section 76(6) read with Section 76(12) of RVAT Tax, 2003 visited the petitioner-firm with the penalty @ 30% of the value of the goods i.e. Rs.3,32,640/-. Further a tax liability of Rs.5,54,400/- was visited on the petitioner-firm in view of the fact that the petitioner-firm was not a registered dealer in the State of Rajasthan. The counsel for the petitioner-firm has argued that the liability of the petitioner-firm apart and the order dated 16.05.2012 being an appealable order, the ACTO, Anti-Evasion, Ward-II, Jhunjhunu had no power to order detention of the vehicle in which the goods were being transported. Mr. R.B. Mathur however pointed out that in terms of Sub-sections (9) and (10) of Section 76 of RVAT Act, 2003 it has been provided that where the owner or a person duly authorised by such owner or the driver or the person In-charge of the vehicle or the carrier is found guilty for violation of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 76, the In-charge of the check-post or barrier or the officer authorised under Sub-section (4) may detain such vehicle or carrier and after affording an opportunity of being heard to such owner, driver or person, may impose a penalty equal to thirty percent of the value of such goods. It has been further provided that the In-charge of the check-post or barrier or the officer authorised under sub-section (4) may release the vehicle or the carrier on the payment of the amount of penalty imposed under sub-section (9) or on furnishing such security as may be directed by such In-charge or officer. Counsel for the Department submitted that in the facts of the case, the goods under transportation being found to be with the intent to evade tax in the State of Rajasthan, penalty and tax liability have been imposed on the petitioner-firm in terms of the order dated 16.05.2012 and the vehicle in question, which has been detained, cannot be released without the discharge of the liability under the order dated 16.05.2012. Having heard the counsel for the parties, I find that there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the order of detention of the vehicle No.RJ-14-2G-9488. The order dated 16.05.2012 is an appealable order and the petitioner-firm may take its remedy as available in law. The writ petition stands dismissed accordingly. Stay application is also dismissed. ;