Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner department, under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (In short "the Act') against the order dated 13.04.2007 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (in short "the Board') in Appeal No. 2654/2005, who had dismissed the appeal of the petitioner department. The brief fact of the case as emerging on the face of record is that the respondent is carrying on business of 'Paints'. On 20.09.1996 Vehicle No. GJ IX 6189 was checked by the Officer of the Flying Squad near Nasirabad Octroi Check Post, it was found that the goods were transmitted to Jaipur branch office from Ahmedabad Head Office. On interrogation, the driver of the vehicle produced all relevant document which were GR No. 008951, Bill No. 430113 and 119 but the declaration Form No. ST -18A was found blank. However, there was no satisfactory explanation given by the respondent, the vehicle was seized. A notice was given to the respondent and only after imposition of penalty @ 30% to the extent of Rs. 90,000/ - after assessing the value of the goods to be about Rs. 3,00,000/ - the vehicle was released. While imposing the penalty, it was mentioned that the declaration Form No. ST -18A was found blank and it was mandatory to be filled in and that blank declaration form, could have been re -used.
(2.) BEING dissatisfied with the aforesaid order passed by the ACTO (FS -I), Ajmer, an appeal was preferred by the respondent before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) -I, Jaipur [In short DC(A)]. It was stated before the DC(A) that there is no dispute with regard to goods being under stock transfer, branch transfer from Ahmedabad to Jaipur. It is an admitted position that as per the Notification issued by the Government of Rajasthan, bearing No./F.4(1)FD/Tax/Div/2000 -314 dated 20.3.2000 there was no requirement to carry the declaration form prior to the said date. It was also submitted that there was no intention of tax evasion as there was no tax on stock transfer/branch transfer. The DC(A) accepted the appeal of the appellant and deleted the penalty imposed under Section 78(5) of the Act, by the ACTO (FS -I), Ajmer. Being dissatisfied with the order dated 2.5.2005 passed by the DC(A), the petitioner department preferred an appeal before the Tax Board, Ajmer, who vide order dated 13.4.2007 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner department and sustained the order of DC (A) who had deleted the penalty as stated above.
(3.) HENCE , this revision petition.;