J.K. Ranka, J. - (1.) Instant revision petition is directed against the order dated August 14, 2007 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer. The brief facts, which can be noticed are that on April 6, 1999, stock of the respondent was being transported through vehicle bearing Registration No. GRO -4430 from Mumbai to Jaipur, was intercepted by the officer of the Anti Evasion Wing Flying Squad -IQ, though all necessary documents were found with vehicle. Since no declaration form ST -18A was produced by the in -charge of the said vehicle, therefore, show -cause notice was issued.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contended that declaration form ST -18A was necessary and mandatory to be carried even in a case of stock transfer and the assessing officer was satisfied and imposed the penalty under Sec. 78(5) correctly. He contended that the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the explanation furnished by the respondent -assessee and deleted the penalty. On a further appeal filed by the Revenue before the Tax Board, they also upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). He further contended that the Tax Board has taken into consideration that the goods were being transported prior to March 22, 2002, and as such the penalty could not have been imposed on the owner and only on account of this fact and following the judgment of the Tax Board in the case of Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Flying Squad v/s. Bajrang Timber Mart, Ladnu, Nagaur dated December 22, 2005, upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), when the honourable apex court in the case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer V. Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v/s. Bajaj Electricals Ltd. : [2008] 18 VST 436 (SC); [2009] 1 SCC 308, has reversed the finding and has held that the penalty can be imposed either on owner or in -charge of the vehicle. Thus, he contended that the order of the Tax Board is perverse and is required to be reversed.
(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the goods were being transported on account of stock transfer from Mumbai to Jaipur and prior to March 30, 2000, there was no requirement of carrying declaration form ST -18A and when there was no requirement at all of carrying declaration form ST -18A then penalty imposed is even otherwise unjustified and the Tax Board has also taken in to consideration this factum while upholding the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). He relied upon the judgment of this court in the case of ACTO, FSI, Jaipur v/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., [2006] 15 Tax -Update 207 and contended that the petition deserves to be dismissed.;