- (1.) THESE revision petitions under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ('VAT Act') have been filed aggrieved against the judgment dated 12.07.2011/17.11.2011 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer ('Tax Board'), whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner against orders dated 24.07.2009 passed by the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes Department, Alwar ['DC (Appeals)'] was partly allowed, wherein, while order relating to the rate of tax was maintained, the penalty imposed was set aside. The DC (Appeals) had upheld the imposition of tax and penalty by the Commercial Taxes Officer (Anti Evasion), Rajasthan First, Jaipur ['CTO (AE)'] and Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle -A, Bhiwadi ('CTO') vide assessment orders passed on various dates.
(2.) THESE 13 petitions arise out of assessment orders passed on different dates by CTO (AE) and CTO pertaining to different quarters. For the sake of convenience facts as narrated in S.B. Sales Tax Revision No.78/2012 are being considered. The revision petitions were admitted by this Court by order dated 19.04.2012 on the following question of law: - "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, Rajasthan Tax Board was legally justified in not classifying the 'sun -glasses' under Entry 125 of Schedule IV of Part A as 'Spectacles, parts and components thereof, contact lens and lens cleaner' taxable @ 4% but classifying under the residuary clause under Schedule V @ 12.5%? "
(3.) THE facts in brief may be noticed thus: the petitioner is a registered dealer under the VAT Act and is engaged in manufacturing/importing/trading and selling of sunglasses and frames thereof. A survey of the dealers' premises was conducted by the CTO (AE) and, on investigation, it was found that the petitioner was collecting and depositing Value Added Tax ('VAT') @ 4% on the sale of sunglasses, whereas, in the opinion of the CTO (AE), the rate of VAT on sunglasses was @ 12.5% as per the Schedule notified for the rate of tax on the goods under VAT Act. In the opinion of the CTO (AE), the product sunglasses was not covered under Serial No.125 of Schedule IV (goods taxable @ 4%) of the VAT Act and the dealer was wrongly paying tax by classifying its product sunglasses under Entry 125 and, therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner filed reply and contested the show cause notice.;