J.K. Ranka, J. - (1.) INSTANT revision petition has been filed under section 84 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 by the petitioner against the order dated June 5, 2009 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (in short, "the Board") in Appeal No. 1837/2006 whereby the penalty under section 78(10A) was deleted. The brief facts emerging from the face of record are that the respondent herein is a driver, while carrying goods (mustard oil) on July 20, 2005 in a vehicle No. PB 13 N 6788 which was coming from Bharatpur side and crossed the check -post of Uncha Nagla towards Agra, was checked by the flying squad. On interrogation, the driver stated his name as Devnath Kunwar and also stated that the mustard oil was filled in the tanker from Lalsot, District, Dausa and the oil was transmitted to Calcutta. In support of goods, the driver produced builty No. 650 dated July 18, 2005, bill No. 204 dated July 18, 2005, declaration form No. 18 -C No. 0742403 and receipt No. (Parchi) 7 dated July 18, 2005. After going through the said documents, it was found that the seal of check -post Uncha Nagla was not affixed and the entry was also not made of the goods in the check -post register. Accordingly, a notice was issued under section 78(2)(b) of the Act for violation and imposed penalty of Rs. 4,84,208 under section 78(10A). The contentions of the respondent -driver was not accepted and disbelieved though all the necessary documents were available with the driver of the vehicle and there was no violation of provisions of the Sales Tax Act, however, penalty as aforesaid was imposed.
(2.) AGAINST the order of the penalty, an appeal was filed before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) (in short, "the DC (A)") who after going through the material on record and following the judgment passed by this court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Tajiander Pal, [2003] 6 Tax Up -Date 84 deleted the amount of penalty imposed by the assessing officer. Against the order of the learned DC (A) appeal was filed before the Tax Board. The learned Tax Board, after examining the material on record and following the view taken by this court in the aforesaid judgment, dismissed the appeal by affirming the order passed by the learned DC (A). Hence, this revision petition.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner -Department, submitted that the driver of the vehicle was not carrying the necessary documents and that seal of check -post was not affirmed and the penalty was rightly imposed.;