- (1.) Instant revision petition has been filed by petitioner-revenue U/s 84 of Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act,2003 ("Act,2003") being aggrieved by the order of Tax Board dt.29.08.2011 which has affirmed the order of Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dt.16.11.2009.
(2.) As it manifests from the record that vehicle bearing no.RJ-14/GB-0737 was checked on 18.07.2008 and during physical verification, the goods in the vehicle were not tallied with the documents submitted by the respondent and the department was of the view that there being violation of Sec.76(2)/76(2)(d) of the Act,2003 accordingly notice regarding violation of Sec.76(2), 76(2) (c) & 76(2)(b) of the Act,2003 was served upon the owner of the vehicle holding that he has violated the provisions of law. It reveals from the record that the owner was not interested in facing enquiry and immediately after the notice came to be served application was filed by him U/s 76(6) for composition of offence and indisputably exercising power U/s 62 of the Act,2003, the alleged offence committed by the owner of the vehicle was compounded and a sum of Rs.180565/- was paid by the owner of the vehicle. At the same time, a separate notice was served upon driver of the vehicle regarding violation of Sec.76(2) & 76(9) of the Act. However, the matter travelled upto the Deputy Commissioner Appeals and it was observed that alleged offence has been compounded and accepted by the department exercising power U/s 68 of the Act,2003 and thereafter holding action in further violation of Sec.76(9) by the driver of the vehicle does not hold good and impugned penalty could not be affected upon the dealer.
(3.) The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), after considering their submissions observed that these are not different offences being committed and if the vehicle which was transporting the goods and seized by the department and if committed default or violation of the provisions of law, after the notice came to be served, the alleged offence has been compounded by the authority exercising power U/s 68 of the Act, the issue stands settled and put to rest. However, penalty inflicted for violation by driver of the vehicle U/s 76(9) of the Act was not justiciable and this what was expressed by the Tax Board as well while rejecting the appeal preferred by the revenue.;