- (1.) This revision petition was admitted vide order dated December 12, 2013 on the following substantial questions of law: "(1) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Rajasthan Tax Board was justified in law in completely changing and reviewing its earlier order in rectification application which is having limited scope. (2) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Rajasthan Tax Board has acted illegally and perversely in deleting the penalty under section 78(5) when there was violation of provisions of section 78(2)(a) and rule 53 and the declaration form ST-18A was not submitted at the time of checking and even with the reply despite opportunity granted by the assessing authority." Counsel for the petitioner-Revenue submits that the Tax Board vide its order dated November 27, 2007 decided the issue in favour of the Revenue, after considering the facts, invoices, bills and upheld the imposition of penalty under section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (for short, "the Act") and came to the conclusion that along with the bill, the declaration form ST-18A was not found along with the goods. Counsel for the Revenue contends that the Tax Board in the impugned order dated January 19, 2011, on the same material and same facts, has reviewed the order dated November 27, 2007, after re-apprising or reviewing the findings given in its own earlier order and has reversed the finding arrived at by the Tax Board in its impugned order dated January 19, 2011. She contends that the Tax Board, in the impugned order, ought not to have reviewed the judgment/order when it, in its earlier order, had categorically, on the same facts and material, came to the conclusion of sustaining the penalty, reversed the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and upheld the order passed by the assessing officer. She further contends that no occasion arose for passing of the impugned order and there is no mistake apparent under section 33 by which the order could have been rectified. She contends that in the garb of the rectification order, by the impugned order, the Tax Board has totally reviewed its earlier view which is unjustified. She contends that the scope of rectification under section 33 is limited and only the mistake apparent on the face of record or clerical or minor errors, can be rectified under section 33. She relied upon judgment of the honourable apex court rendered in the case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Makkad Plastic Agencies, 2011 4 JT 203.
(2.) No one appears on behalf of the respondent-assessee despite of service.
(3.) I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the Revenue and perused the impugned order so also the order dated November 27, 2007.;