Sunil Kumar Garg, J. - (1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer against judgment dated 17.4.2002 (Annex.3) passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer in Second Appeal No. 578/2000 by which the learned Tax Board affirmed the judgment dated 30.9.1999 (Annex.2) passed by learned Dy. Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur by which the learned Dy. Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur allowed the appeal filed by respondent and set aside the order dated 13.1.1998 by which the learned Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 61,205/-.
(2.) It arises in the following circumstances : On 16.10.1998, the Vehicle No. RNG 1015 (hereinafter referred to as vehicle in question) which was carrying goods belonging to the respondent firm, was intercepted and checked by the petitioner-Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer at Bhuwanipura Railway Crossing (Chittoragrh) and during checking, it was found that the declaration form ST-18A accompanied with the goods was not found filled in up. Since the goods in transit were accompanied with the blank declaration form ST-18A, therefore, a notice under Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1994") for violation of the provisions of Section 78(2) of the Act of 1994 was issued by the Assessing Authority to the respondent-dealer as to why penalty be not imposed. In pursuance to the show cause notice, the respondent-assessee filed reply stating that the form ST-18A was sent by the respondent duly signed to the consignee, who and transporter by mistake sent it blank along with the goods and therefore, the form ST 18A was found blank. It was further alleged by the respondent that it was a technical mistake and he had no malafide intention to avoid tax. After examining the matter, the Assessing Authority came to the conclusion that the respondent was guilty of violating the provisions of Section 78(2) of the Act of 1994 and consequently, the Assessing Authority through order dated 13.1.1999 (Annex.1) imposed the penalty of Rs. 61,205/- on the respondent. Aggrieved from the said order dated 13.1.1999 (Annex.1), the respondent-dealer preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Jaipur under Section 84 of the Act of 1994 and through judgment dated 30.9.1999 (Annex.2), the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the respondent and set aside the order of the Assessing Authority dated 13.1.1999 (Annex.1) holding inter-alia that no doubt the requisite declaration form ST-18A was found blank, but the form ST-18A was sent by the respondent duly signed to the consignee, who and transporter by mistake sent it blank along with the goods and such mistake can be regarded as technical one and further, since rest papers were found valid and correct one and not bogus one, therefore, in these circumstances, the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that from the above facts, it could not reasonably be inferred that the respondent-dealer had any intention of evading tax or there was mens rea on the part of the respondent-dealer to evade tax. Aggrieved from the said judgment dated 30.9.1999 (Annex.2), the petitioner preferred appeal before the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer and the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer through the impugned judgment dated 17.4.2002 (Annex.3) dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and affirmed the findings recorded by the learned First Appellate Authority through judgment dated 30.9.1999 (Annex.2). Hence, this revision petition.
(3.) In this revision, the main case as put forward by the learned counsel Dr the petitioner is that in cases when at the time of checking, the declaration form ST-18A accompanied with the goods if found blank, the provisions of penalty clauses embodied in Section 78(5) of the Act of 1994 for violation of the provisions of Section 78(2) of the Act of 1994 are automatically attracted and therefore, because of this fact, the impugned judgments Annex.2 dated 30.9.1999 and Annex.3 dated 17.4.2002 of First Appellate Authority (Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)), and Second Appellate Authority (Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer) respectively cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed and set aside.;