- (1.) These revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner-Department being aggrieved by the order of the Tax Board by which the Tax Board, while rejecting the Revenue's appeal, upheld the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and thus both the appellate authorities below held that the penalty under section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 could not be imposed on the respondent-assessee if the declaration form ST-18-A prescribed under rule 53 of the RST Rules read with section 81 of the Act was found blank or not completely filled up, if other supporting bills, vouchers, documents found at the time of checking of the goods like sales book, transport, etc., were found in order. In earlier matters, on same lines the Revenue challenged one such case before the honourable apex court and the honourable apex court in the case of Guljag Industries v. Commercial Taxes Officer, 2007 7 SCC 269 and Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Bajaj Electricals Ltd., 2009 1 SCC 308 have decided the controversy in favour of the Revenue-petitioner and have given some guidelines in cases like this. According to the counsel for the petitioner, after the judgment rendered in the above two cases by the honourable apex court, in all these cases, since the declaration form was found totally blank or incomplete in all respect or partly filled up, therefore, in the light of the aforesaid two judgments of the honourable apex court, the revision petitions deserve to be allowed because the honourable apex court has come to a conclusion that in cases where declaration form was found blank or incomplete, was not proper and penalty could be levied. However, Mr. Alkesh Sharma, counsel, representing on behalf of one of the respondent-assessee, submitted that this court, after the judgment of the honourable apex court has remanded the matter back to the assessing officer. He placed reliance on the judgment of this court in the case of Commercial Taxes Officer v. Jain Tubes,2011 30 TU 125and ACTO v. Hariom Company,2011 30 TU 285 and submitted that the respondent deserves to be allowed opportunity of fresh hearing in the light of the directions of the honourable apex court. He further submitted that number of cases like this have been remanded back by this court.
(2.) The counsel for the petitioner-Department is unable to controvert, the above facts and judgments of this court by which the matters were remanded. She, however, reiterated that in the light of the judgment of the apex court in Guljag Industries, 2007 7 SCC 269, the matter may be decided in favour of the Revenue.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgments cited at the bar including judgment of the honourable apex court in the case of Guljag Industries, 2007 7 SCC 269 and Bajaj Electricals Ltd., 2009 1 SCC 308. There is no denial that principles of natural justice have to be complied with in the penalty proceedings under section 78(5) of the Act. Even section 78(5) of the Act provides for such opportunity of hearing to be given. Even the honourable apex court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. D.P. Metals, 2002 1 SCC 279 supports the contention of the assessee that the principles of natural justice have to be followed.;