Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 read with Section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter 'the 1994 Act') against the order dated 25 -1 -2010 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (hereinafter 'the Board'). Facts:
(2.) FOR the financial year 2000 -01, the assessee was assessed for turnover tax on 25 -5 -2002 and paid tax due. Thereafter the assessee received a show cause notice dated 24 -11 -2004 requiring it to appear on 29 -11 -2004 and show cause as to why an amount of Rs. 2,94,756/ - should not be added to its turnover for the Assessment Year 2000 -01 assessed on 25 -5 -2002 and additional tax thereon with statutory interest and penalty not be levied for the reason that the excise department had apparently found it liable for evasion of excise duty on an amount of Rs. 2,94,756/ - for the financial year 2000 -01. According to the show cause notice as the escaped amount vis -a -vis excise duty apparently constituted a part of the sale price of the goods manufactured by the assessee, it was liable to be added in the turnover of the assessee earlier determined and escaped turnover tax under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter 'the 1954 Act') recovered. The assessee apparently did not appear on 29 -11 -2004 as required in the show cause notice. Whereupon the department passed an order dated 29 -3 -2006 fastening additional liability on the assessee on account of escaped turnover tax, interest and penalty aggregating to Rs. 49,636/ -. Aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal against the order dated 29 -3 -2006. The appellate Authority found that the additional tax liability towards turnover tax for the year 2000 -01 under the assessing officer's order dated 29 -3 -2006 was clearly based only on the purported information from the office of the Auditor and Comptroller General as to evasion of excise duty by the assessee on an amount of Rs. 2,94,756/ - during the relevant year. No independent enquiry was conducted for the purpose and material as to underreporting of turnover and consequent short payment of turnover tax obtained. Further in any event the assessee was not provided reasonable opportunity of defence inasmuch as even the purported information received from the office of the Accountant General was not supplied to the assessee. Relying on the judgments of the Tax Board in the case of CTO Kota Vs. M/s. Anand Minerals Pvt. Ltd. [Tax Update, (2002) Vol. 4 Part 7 page 312] the Appellate Authority set aside the order dated 29 -3 -2006 passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 84 of the 1994 Act for levy of purported escaped turnover tax, interest thereon and penalty.
(3.) THE department's second appeal to the Tax Board failed. Hence this revision petition.;