2002 (11) TMI 752 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty for not carrying form No. 18A along with goods transported from one State to another.
2. Violation of provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 and Rules, 1995.
3. Interpretation of the requirement to carry form No. 18A for importing goods from another State.
4. Effect of the amendment in rule 62-A of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules on carrying form No. 18A.
5. Justification for exonerating the respondent-dealer from inferring dishonest intention of tax evasion.
6. Assessment of the respondent-dealer's compliance with documentation requirements despite not carrying form No. 18A.
7. Evaluation of the appellate authority and Rajasthan Tax Board's decisions regarding the dealer's intention and compliance.
8. Consideration of whether the dealer's actions constituted irregularity or illegality.

Analysis:
The case involves a sales tax revision challenging the imposition of a penalty for not carrying form No. 18A along with goods transported from one State to another. The controversy revolves around whether the respondent-dealer violated the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 by not carrying the required declaration form. The form, S.T. 18A, certifies the import of goods from another State and the dealer's liability for sales tax payment. An amendment in rule 62-A abolished check-posts, leading to the respondent not carrying form No. 18A. The petitioner argued that the dealer's omission indicated dishonest intention to evade tax, but the court disagreed.

The court emphasized that the purpose of form No. 18A was to declare imported goods and ensure sales tax payment to the relevant State. Despite not carrying form 18A, the dealer had accompanying documents indicating the goods' origin and value. The court noted that the dealer's failure to carry form 18A was due to the ambiguity created by the amendment abolishing check-posts. The court agreed with the lower authorities' view that the dealer's actions did not indicate tax evasion but rather an irregularity. The court found no miscarriage of justice or revenue loss to the State exchequer, leading to the dismissal of the revision petition at the admission stage.

In conclusion, the court upheld the decisions of the appellate authority and Rajasthan Tax Board, ruling that the dealer's failure to carry form No. 18A did not amount to illegality but was a result of the existing amendment's ambiguity. The court determined that the dealer's actions were not indicative of tax evasion, leading to the dismissal of the revision petition for lack of merit.