Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) Assessment of the petitioner -firm for assessment year 2000 -01 was finalized on March 31, 2003, wherein the assessing authority found that the petitioner -firm did not show bill No. 7, dated September 6, 2000 amounting to Rs. 12,264 and bill No. 296 dated February 18, 2001 amounting to Rs. 24,108 for assessment purpose, issued by it for sale during the course of inter -State trade and commerce, and, as such, it is liable for Central sales tax and accordingly charged tax at the rate of 12 per cent plus surcharge, amounting to Rs. 5,020 (4,365 + 655). That apart, penalty of Rs. 10,040 was also imposed on the petitioner under Sec. 65 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, read with Central Sales Tax Act, 1956. Since the petitioner was taken to have not paid the aforesaid tax, interest of Rs. 2,108 was also charged from it. The petitioner, aggrieved by levy of tax, imposition of penalty and interest, filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Kota, which, vide order dated May 7, 2007, partly accepted the same reducing the interest amount of Rs. 2,108, but maintained the order of levy of tax and penalty. The petitioner, aggrieved thereby, preferred Second Appeal No. 1565/2007/Kota, before the Tax Board for Rajasthan, Ajmer, which came to be dismissed by judgment dated December 18, 2008. Hence this writ petition. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record, I find that the Rajasthan Tax Board has rightly dismissed the second appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner -firm did not issue the bills from the regular bill book for sale of Kota stone amounting to Rs. 36,372, which goods the petitioner -firm sold during the course of inter -State trade and commerce. The assessing officer took it as unrecorded sale and imposed tax and penalty as also interest. The aforesaid bills as also the bilty to consign the goods through Punjab Haryana Roadways Transport Company are available on the record of the assessing authority. The bills belonged to the petitioner -firm and the RST and CST numbers mentioned on the bilty are of the petitioner -firm. The assessing authority has rightly found that the said bills were not issued from the regular bill book of the petitioner -firm and the petitioner -firm had duplicate bill book as it could not get the aforesaid bills verified to have been issued from the regular bill books. On September 6, 2000, bill No. 71 was issued from the original bill book of the petitioner -firm, thus it is clear that bill No. 7 dated September 6, 2000 was issued from duplicate bill book and thus the petitioner -firm has escaped that transactions from assessment. The petitioner -firm was also provided full opportunity of hearing before levy of tax and imposition of penalty but it failed to prove that the bills were issued from regular bill book. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeal) has already reduced the amount of excess interest. The Rajasthan Tax Board has rightly maintained the levy of tax, penalty and interest on the alleged inter -State transactions.
(2.) I do not find any error or infirmity in the impugned orders. The sales tax revision, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.;