2010 (10) TMI 949 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues involved:
Penalty under section 78(10A) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 for alleged violation of clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 78.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Levying of Penalty:
The assessing authority imposed a penalty under section 78(10A) of the Act for the alleged violation of clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 78. The petitioner challenged this penalty through an appeal, which was initially allowed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). Subsequently, the Department filed a second appeal, which was dismissed by the Rajasthan Tax Board. The revision petition now challenges this judgment of the Rajasthan Tax Board dated September 30, 2009.

2. Contention of the Petitioner:
The petitioner's counsel acknowledged that the necessary documents were present with the vehicle during checking. However, the argument put forth was that the absence of a seal from the check-post on these documents should not be considered a violation of section 78(2)(b) of the Act.

3. Judicial Analysis:
The High Court, after considering the submissions of the petitioner's counsel and the reasoning provided by the appellate authorities, found that both authorities had correctly accepted the explanation given by the assessee. It was established that the person in charge of the vehicle had visited a specific location for personal reasons, which explained the absence of the check-post seal on the documents. The appellate authorities thoroughly examined the matter and concluded that there was no violation of section 78(2)(b) as all required documents were indeed present with the vehicle.

4. Question of Law vs. Question of Fact:
The High Court highlighted that the controversy in the case pertained to a question of fact, not a question of law. Moreover, there was a concurrent finding of fact by both the appellate authorities. As per legal principles, a revision to the court is permissible when a question of law is involved. Since the issue at hand was factual and there was no legal question, the High Court dismissed the revision petition.

5. Dismissal of Revision:
Conclusively, the High Court found no merit in the revision petition and dismissed it in limine. The court emphasized that since the matter revolved around factual findings supported by both appellate authorities, there was no basis for further legal intervention.