- (1.) The instant petition is directed against order dated 27.6.2011 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, in Appeal No.2324/2008/Jaipur, by which appeal of the respondent has been allowed.
(2.) The brief facts noticed are that on 26.12.2007, vehicle bearing no.RJ-32G-2087 was intercepted at Jaipur. The driver/in-charge produced builty no.161687, delivery note nos.3529 & 3530, bill nos.7484 & 7485, and declaration form VAT 47 bearing no.2167789. On perusal of the VAT 47, it was noticed by the Anti Evasion Wing that various columns were found blank/not filled in, namely column no.3 of partA, column nos.1-4 of part-B, and column no.2 of part-C, and it transpired that nature of transaction, invoice/bill/no. on despatch memo, date, value, description of the goods, builty no. etc. were found blank. So also it was noticed that VAT 47, insofar as date, month and value are concerned, was not duly punched and, therefore, it was prima facie noticed by the officer that it was with the intention of evasion of tax. It was also noticed that the vehicle contained 202 bundles of paper-roll whereas the documents produced were for 185 bundles of paper. Accordingly show cause notice u/s 76(2)(b) of the Act was issued. On the show cause notice, on behalf of the respondent assessee, in the light of judgment of apex court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Another v. D.P. Metals, 2001 124 STC 611, VAT declaration form 47 duly filled was produced and it was claimed by the assessee that the assessee complied with the provisions of the Act and accordingly no penalty is required to be levied. However, the officer was not satisfied and rejected the contention by holding that the declaration form ought to have been completely filled in all respect and also to be punched simultaneously, accordingly levied penalty u/s 76(6) of the Act.
(3.) The matter was assailed before the Dy. Com. (Appeals) who took into consideration the material placed on record and held that the judgment in the case of D.P. Metals is not applicable and also held that in the light of judgment in the case of Guljag Industries vs CTO, 2007 7 SCC 269, the penalty was rightly imposed and the goods were transported with the intention of evasion of tax. On a further appeal by the assessee before the Tax Board, resulted into allowing of the appeal, particularly by the Tax Board by holding that the production of subsequent VAT 47 on a show cause notice was justified and taking into consideration the judgment of D.P. Metals , was sufficient compliance hence deleted, however, since the assessee produced declaration form only with reference to 185 bundles, therefore, for the balance there being no declaration form, penalty was sustained.;