9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (11) TMI 374 - SC - VAT and Sales TaxWhether the goods are put in movement under local sales, imports, exports or inter-State transactions? Held that - Allow the Department s civil appeal. The Deputy Commissioner (A) was right in holding that all the excuses are trotted out as an afterthought. Even the production of the form before the Deputy Commissioner (A) was an afterthought. Under the 1995 Rules, the consignor is required to give the said form duly filled in when the consignment is ordered. The consignee has to see that the form is given to the transporter with the complete details duly filled in by the consignor. If one sees the form it is clear that it shall be the duty of the consignee or his agent (transporter) to see that the consignor fills the form. Therefore, on facts we are satisfied that the said form ST-18A, though signed, remained incomplete. The details required were never supplied. Hence penalty was correctly levied under section 78(5) of the 1994 Act.
Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of penalty under Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. 2. Responsibility for filling in declaration form ST-18A. 3. Interpretation of mens rea in the context of penalty under Section 78(5). 4. Applicability of amendments to Section 78(5) of the 1994 Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Imposition of Penalty under Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994: The Supreme Court of India reviewed a civil appeal filed by the Department challenging the Rajasthan High Court's decision that set aside the penalty imposed under Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. The case involved a truck intercepted on March 30, 1999, without a duly filled declaration form ST-18A, leading to a penalty of Rs. 85,500 on goods valued at Rs. 2,85,000. The appellate authority and the Rajasthan Tax Board upheld the penalty, but the High Court set it aside, citing no intention to evade tax as the form was left out due to a bona fide mistake by the transporter. 2. Responsibility for Filling in Declaration Form ST-18A: The respondent argued that the responsibility for filling in the declaration form ST-18A lay with the transporter and the consignor. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that the consignee (importer) must ensure that the consignor supplies the requisite information in the form. The form ST-18A, which is critical for assessing the taxable turnover, must be duly filled in by the consignee and the consignor. The failure to provide complete details in the form results in a violation of Section 78(2)(a) of the 1994 Act. 3. Interpretation of Mens Rea in the Context of Penalty under Section 78(5): The Supreme Court reiterated its previous judgment in Guljag Industries v. Commercial Taxes Officer, which held that mens rea (guilty mind) is not necessary for imposing a penalty under Section 78(5) of the 1994 Act. The transport of goods with an incomplete declaration form ST-18A automatically attracts a penalty for breaching Section 78(2). The Court clarified that even if mens rea were an essential ingredient, the act of not filling in the material particulars in the declaration form per se indicates an intention to evade tax. 4. Applicability of Amendments to Section 78(5) of the 1994 Act: The respondent argued that the penalty could not be imposed under the amended Section 78(5) of the 1994 Act, as the cause of action arose before the amendment on March 22, 2002. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the expression "person in charge of the goods" under the unamended Section 78(5) included the owner of the goods. The Court explained that the amendment clarified the existing provision and did not introduce a new concept. The owner of the goods was always responsible for ensuring compliance with the declaration form requirements. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the penalty under Section 78(5) was correctly imposed, as the consignee failed to ensure the declaration form ST-18A was duly filled. The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court was set aside, and the Department's civil appeal was allowed. The Court emphasized the importance of the consignee's responsibility in providing complete and accurate information in the declaration form to prevent tax evasion.
|
