J.K. Ranka, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner -Department, assailing the order dated March 27, 2012 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (for short, Tax Board"), deleting the penalty of Rs. 54,680, imposed upon the respondent by the petitioner -Department under section 25(1) read with section 61 of the Sales Tax Act (for short, "the Act"). Brief facts, as emerging on the face of the record of the case, are that a survey was conducted by the officer of the petitioner -Department on May 15, 2007 at the business premises of the respondent. On enquiry, it was noticed that the respondent had sold "Naswar" (snuff) amounting to Rs. 6,83,063 on inter -State basis during the period from April 1, 2007 to April 3, 2007. However, neither Central sales tax (CST) was collected, nor deposited. It was observed/by the assessing officer that by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2007, the tobacco products have been deleted from the category of declared goods/items under the Central Sales Tax Act and on the said basis, the Government of Rajasthan has issued a notification dated April 4, 2007, whereby the entry has been deleted at serial No. 136 of the Fourth Schedule of VAT and levied tax (VAT) at 12.5 per cent. Therefore, on the said basis, for the period from April 1, 2007 to April 3, 2007, there was liability of the respondent in not only collecting the tax but paying it to the treasury also at four per cent, and since form "C" was not available, therefore, the respondent was liable to pay differential tax at four per cent. Accordingly, a notice was issued to the respondent to show cause as to why tax as well as interest and penalty be not levied upon it, in view of the amendment.
(2.) IT was submitted by the respondent that the respondent was not aware of the amendment made in the law and it was prevented by good, sufficient and reasonable causes in not collecting the tax and in not paying the same. It was further pleaded that as soon as the said fact came to its notice, the differential tax was deposited on June 11, 2007. It was also submitted that there was no ulterior motive of the respondent and had this fact been known that the respondent is liable to collect the CST and to pay it, the respondent could have certainly done the same thing, but this factum was not known to the respondent, therefore, it was submitted that since the respondent has deposited the due tax and there was no occasion of concealment of tax, the penalty should not be levied. It was also submitted that all the transactions are duly recorded and therefore, even otherwise, penalty should not be imposed. However, the petitioner being not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the respondent, not only levied tax but also imposed a penalty of Rs. 27,311 under section 25(1) of the Act and further increased it double of the penalty amount, amounting to Rs. 54,622 under section 61 of the Act, vide order dated June 22, 2007. Being dissatisfied with the said penalty order dated June 22, 2007, the matter was carried before the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Ajmer (for short, "the DC (A)") and the facts were reiterated before the learned DC (A). However, the learned DC (A) was not satisfied with the explanation furnished and has sustained the penalty, as aforesaid, vide order dated July 31, 2008.
(3.) BEING aggrieved by the order of sustainability of penalty by the learned DC (A) vide order dated July 31, 2008, the matter was carried in appeal before the Tax Board, where it was again reiterate that the respondent was not aware of the amendment made in law as according to it, up to March 31, 2007 the manufacturing/production of "Bidi" was totally exempted and the Central Government made an amendment effective from April 1, 2007 only, by which the tobacco was deleted from Schedule 1. It was on April 4, 2007 that further amendment was made by the Government of Rajasthan vide Notification No. and in view of the above notification issued by the Government of Rajasthan, no further liability remained. It is only a matter of three days in which the aforesaid events happened and this factum came to the notice of the respondent, and no sooner when this fact came to the notice of the respondent, due tax was deposited before imposition of penalty on June 11, 2007 and there was no ulterior motive of the respondent in not paying the due tax as the amendment did not come to the notice of the respondent. Had the amendment been conveyed to the respondent, it would have certainly deposited the due tax immediately. It was further pleaded that all the transactions were duly recorded in the books of accounts and there was no intention of evasion of tax, therefore, the penalty need not be imposed. After considering the submissions of the parties, the Tax Board while partly allowing the appeal of respondent, deleted the penalty of Rs. 54,680 under section 61 of the Act vide order impugned dated March 27, 2012, against which the petitioner -Department has preferred the instant revision petition.;