Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J. - (1.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the assessee has also preferred Sales Tax Revision Petition No.57/2017 titled as ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. CTO against sustenance of the levy of tax, however on enquiry from the registry, it transpired that the said petition arising out of the same impugned order dt.20.12.2016 was dismissed on account of non-compliance of per-emptory order though the said issue is even otherwise covered against the assessee in the light of judgment of this Court in HDFC Bank Limited, Jaipur Vs. CTO Anti Evasion Rajasthan, Circle-III, Jaipur and other batch of cases in SB STR No.1/2016 decided on 23.02.2017.
(2.) All these petitions filed at the instance of the revenue since involve a common question with regard to deletion of penalty u/Sec.61 of the Act, hence are being decided by the present order. It relates to the assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, & 2011-12 respectively.
(3.) The brief facts noticed are that the claim of the assessee is that the assessee is engaged in providing finance to the prospective buyers of vehicle and if buyers after certain time fail to pay the regular installment (EMI) as per agreement arrived at by and between the assessee and the buyer (assessee) gets the right to repossess the vehicle and get it transferred in its own name and thereafter either directly or through agent, can dispose/auction the vehicle whether such transaction is exigible to tax under Rajasthan Value Added Tax (RVAT) or not. It is undisputed fact that all the three authorities namely; Assessing Officer, Dy. Commissioner (A) as well as the Tax Board have upheld that the transaction is exigible to tax under the RVAT Act, following the judgment of the Apex court in the case of Federal Bank Ltd. & Others Vs. State of Kerala & Others, 2007 6 VST 36. However, in so far as penalty u/Sec. 61 of the Act is concerned, while the Assessing Officer imposed penalty which was upheld by the Dy. Commissioner (A) but the Tax Board in the impugned order has held that there is no case of imposition of penalty u/Sec. 61 of the Act and accordingly, deleted the penalty in all the assessment years.;