1999 (2) TMI 633 - AT - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Application under section 8 of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995 invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Tribunal in a matter under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994.
2. Seizure of goods in transit and imposition of penalty under section 78(4)(b) of the 1994 Act.
3. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal regarding goods in transit between states.
4. Validity of seizure memo and notices issued by the Tax Officer.
5. Interpretation of provisions under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 in relation to tax evasion and penalties.

Analysis:

1. The Tribunal considered an application under section 8 of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995, which invoked the Tribunal's extraordinary jurisdiction in a matter under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. The case involved the interception and checking of a truck carrying goods in transit, leading to the seizure of certain goods and the imposition of penalties by the Tax Officer.

2. The Tax Officer seized 360 bags of plastic granules along with audio-visual tapes, suspecting tax evasion under section 78(4)(b) of the 1994 Act. The petitioner, who was the carrier, challenged the seizure memo and subsequent notices issued by the Tax Officer, claiming that the goods were destined for Delhi and had been loaded from Bombay, not Rajasthan.

3. The Tribunal examined the jurisdictional aspects concerning goods in transit between states. It was noted that even if there was an attempt to evade tax in another state, the authority empowered under the Act had no jurisdiction to impose penalties outside the state's territory. The Tribunal referenced a previous judgment to support this interpretation, emphasizing that the Act did not apply to tax evasion occurring outside Rajasthan.

4. Upon review of the facts, the Tribunal found that the consignment of audio-visual tapes was in order and was released, while the granules were released after an interim order. The Tribunal observed that the goods had left Rajasthan and reached Delhi after the release, regardless of the exact location of interception.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the application, quashing the seizure memo and the notices issued by the Tax Officer. It was held that if the consignee in Delhi was found to be false, the appropriate action would be to ensure the goods left Rajasthan's territory and inform the relevant authorities in Delhi. The judgment concluded with the application being allowed, and the impugned actions were set aside with no costs imposed.