9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (2) TMI 649 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxLevy of penalty imposed under section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Held that - The order passed by the Tax Board, Ajmer, is quite justified and the Board had rightly affirmed the order and there is no perversity in the order of Tax Board, whereby the penalty deleted by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), against the respondent was sustained.
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 for non-production of form ST-18A. 2. Appeal against the penalty order by the respondent. 3. Decision of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) in deleting the penalty. 4. Appeal by the petitioner-Department before the Rajasthan Tax Board. 5. Decision of the Rajasthan Tax Board upholding the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). 6. Revision petition filed by the petitioner-Department against the order of the Tax Board. Issue 1: Imposition of Penalty under Section 78(5) for Non-Production of Form ST-18A: The case involved the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 1,09,009 under section 78(5) of the Act against the respondent for not producing form ST-18A, a mandatory document for transporting goods. The respondent argued that the form was inadvertently not handed over to the driver but was produced immediately upon demand. The petitioner-Department contended that the penalty was justified due to the non-compliance with carrying form ST-18A. Issue 2: Appeal Against the Penalty Order: The respondent appealed before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) (DC (A)) challenging the penalty. The respondent cited inadvertence and lack of mala fide intention in not producing form ST-18A. The DC (A) accepted the respondent's arguments, referring to judgments including the State of Rajasthan v. D.P. Metals [2001] 124 STC 611 (SC), and deleted the penalty imposed by the ACTO. Issue 3: Decision of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals): The DC (A) acknowledged the respondent's bona fides and overturned the penalty based on the circumstances and judgments cited. The DC (A) found no mala fide intention on the respondent's part and deleted the penalty. Issue 4: Appeal Before the Rajasthan Tax Board: The petitioner-Department appealed before the Rajasthan Tax Board against the DC (A)'s decision. The Tax Board, after detailed discussions, noted that form ST-18A was produced upon demand, and upheld the DC (A)'s order, ruling that no penalty could be imposed solely for the non-production of form ST-18A. Issue 5: Decision of the Rajasthan Tax Board: The Tax Board affirmed the DC (A)'s decision, emphasizing that all other relevant documents were available, and form ST-18A was produced promptly upon request. The Tax Board concluded that penalizing for the sole reason of non-production of form ST-18A was unwarranted. Issue 6: Revision Petition Against the Tax Board's Order: The petitioner-Department filed a revision petition challenging the Tax Board's decision. The court, after considering arguments and precedents, including the case of D.P. Metals [2001] 124 STC 611 (SC), upheld the orders of the DC (A) and the Tax Board. The court found no perversity in the Tax Board's decision and dismissed the revision petition, affirming the deletion of the penalty. This detailed analysis covers the issues surrounding the imposition of the penalty, the appeals made by the parties, the decisions of the authorities involved, and the final outcome of the revision petition.
|
