Gopal Krishan, J. - (1.) BY this revision petition, the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Flying Squad, Jodhpur is challenging the judgment passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer dated 10.5.2000 in Appeal No. 92/97/ST/Jodhpur, so also, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dated 2.9.1996, whereby, the learned Tax Board, Ajmer upheld the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dated 2.9.1996, whereby, the said authority quashed and set aside the order passed by the AA dated 3.2.1995 by which penalty of Rs. 15,600/ - was imposed upon the respondent company.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the goods in question was travelling in truck No. GJ -9/T -5438 from Bombay to Jodhpur and it was carrying 10 electric motors. At the time of checking physical verification was made by the ACTO, Flying Squad, Jodhpur and it was found that the goods were not accompanied by bill or bilty of the goods carried in the vehicle nor it was shown in the monetary form ST 18A. In such circumstances, a show -cause notice was issued by the AA to which reply was filed by the non -petitioner assessee; but, it was not found satisfactory, therefore, the AA imposed penalty as indicated above under Section 22 -A(7) of the Act of 1954. Against aforesaid order passed by the AA, the assessee preferred appeal before the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur which came to be decided on 2.9.1996, in which, it was held that there was no mens rea on the part of the assessee for evading tax liability. The Dy. Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur set aside the order passed by the AA vide judgment dated 2.9.1996. Thereafter, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 2.9.1996, second appeal was preferred by the department before the learned Tax Board, Ajmer. Learned Tax Board, Ajmer upheld the order passed by the first appellate authority. Hence, this revision petition. While challenging both the orders, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that both the orders passed by the authorities below speak that there is no examination of the matter in its entirety and objectivity. The relevant material on record has altogether been ignored which is evident from the fact that documentary report and reply submitted by the respondent company, it was manifestly clear that the goods in transit were not accompanied by the requisite documents as required under Section 22A of the Act of 1954 at the time of physical verification of the goods. Therefore, the AA imposed the penalty which is in accordance with Section 22A of the Act of 1954.
(3.) FURTHER , it is argued that the authorities below have seriously erred in interfering with the order passed by the AA because no reasons for interfering with the order passed by the AA have been incorporated in the order. Likewise, the learned Tax Board has committed serious error which is apparent on the face of record that the finding of fact arrived at by the AA has not been considered properly. Therefore, the orders passed by both the authorities below are perverse and illegal and are liable to be quashed. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that the facts stated in the revision petition are far from truth because upon perusal of the order passed by the AA itself it is obvious that after physical verification the bill and bilty of 10 electric motors were produced and there is requirement of provisions of law to submit form ST18A. Learned Counsel for the respondent has invited my attention towards Rule 62A(3) of the Rules of 1955. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the respondent that the respondent is manufacturer of cotton thread and. for the purpose of manufacture/production of cotton thread, these electric motors were purchased for generating electricity. For such type of commodity, as per Rule 62A (3) of the Rules of 1955, there is no requirement of declaration form ST18A. The said commodity which is electric motors were purchased by the respondent for the purpose of manufacture/production and not for sale.;