ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER Vs. MAHESHWARI UDYOG AND ORS.
LAWS(RAJ)-2015-9-125
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on September 30,2015

ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER Appellant
VERSUS
Maheshwari Udyog And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

J.K. Ranka, J. - (1.) The instant revision petition is directed against the order Dt. 21/11/2007 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer in appeal No. 505/2006/Jaipur.
(2.) The brief facts, which can be noticed are that on 08/01/2001, the vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ -31/G -1043 was intercepted by the Officer of the Anti Evasion Wing Flying Squad, Kota wherein it was found that the vehicle was carrying 234 bags of Binola and the same were being transported from Saindwa (M.P.) to Kishangarh Renwal (Raj.). On asking the In -charge/driver of the vehicle produced GR No. 496 dt. 05/01/2001 as also bills and vouchers and other documents. However the said vehicle was not carrying declaration Form ST -18A and it was noticed by the Authorized Officer that since declaration Form ST -18A was not found, therefore, there was violation of 78(2) read with Rule 53 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. A show cause notice was issued and on show cause notice, the respondent accepted that there was mistake in not carrying of declaration Form ST -18A and he was ready and willing to pay penalty and to pass an order on the same day i.e. 10/01/2001 itself. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty u/S. 78(5). The same was assailed before the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals), however, on the premise that the goods were transported prior to 22.03.2002, the penalty could have been imposed only on In -charge/driver of the vehicle, the penalty was deleted.
(3.) The Tax Board in the light of judgment of the Tax Board (full Bench) in the case of Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Flying Squad v/s. M/s. Bajrang Timber Mart, Ladnu, Nagaur decided on 22/12/2005, where it was held that when other documents, bills, vouchers proved that all particulars were noted in the bill, therefore declaration Form ST -18A was not required and even no penalty was leviable on the owner. Thus, deleted the penalty on an appeal filed by the revenue, the Tax Board also upheld the order of the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals).;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.