1993 (10) TMI 319 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Levy of penalty under section 22A(7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act based on discrepancies in weight and documents presented during a goods inspection.

Detailed Analysis:

The revision petition was filed against the order of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, which set aside the penalty of Rs. 13,275.60 levied under section 22A(7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. The main question raised was whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the penalty under section 22A(7) of the Act. The case involved a truck carrying goods from Jaipur to Bombay, where discrepancies in weight and documents were noted during an inspection on January 2, 1985.

The Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer found discrepancies in the weight of the goods as per the bilty and the bill, as well as differences in the documents presented during the inspection. The officer raised concerns about the signatures on the documents, the change in dates, and missing documents related to the transaction. The officer concluded there was tax evasion due to the lack of proper documentation and discrepancies in the information provided.

The appeal by the assessee was rejected, leading to the matter being taken up before the Sales Tax Tribunal. The assessee explained that the goods were dispatched on January 2, 1985, due to the truck being under repair, despite the contract being entered into on December 31, 1984. The Tribunal found that the discrepancies were due to actual weighment differences and minor issues like insurance charges, and the penalty was set aside.

The judge emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the assessing authority when levying a penalty under section 22A(7), and it is not the responsibility of the assessee to prove innocence. The judge criticized the assessing authority for not verifying information properly and relying on directions from superiors. The judge highlighted the importance of promptness in checking for evasion and noted that minor discrepancies in documents do not necessarily indicate tax evasion, especially when supported by proper records.

Ultimately, the judge found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's decision to set aside the penalty. The revision petition was dismissed accordingly, upholding the Tribunal's ruling.