2013 (8) TMI 867 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Violation of provision of rule 54 - Imposition of penalty - intention of tax evasion - Held that - On going by the Guljag Industries 2007 (8) TMI 344 - SUPREME Court rendered by the honourable apex court, what would be material particulars according to me, would be filling in columns where quality, weight, description on the goods and value is required to be clearly filled in and stated. In the said judgment, at one place, the honourable apex court has also mentioned about filling of value in the declaration as important so if all these are filled in the declaration form ST18C then according to me, all other particulars though may be important but will not be relevant for imposition of penalty in a case like this, in the present case, only invoice number and date was left to be filled in and according to me, in so far as the present case is concerned, it is distinguishable to the judgment rendered by the honourable apex court. Had other material particulars not being filled in, possibly the argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner-Department that the form could have been re-used but when all material particulars namely' quality, weight description of the goods, value, name of the transporter, name of the consignor and consignee had been duly filled in, apprehension of the Department that the form could have been re-used, is not sustainable, only because invoice number and date was left to be filled in, in my opinion, the form could not have been re-used. Therefore, in my view, judgment of the honourable apex court in Guljag Industries 2007 (8) TMI 344 - SUPREME Court in so far as the present facts and circumstances are concerned, is not applicable and distinguishable. - Tax Board as well as the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), were justified in arriving at the conclusion of deleting the penalty imposed against the respondent-assessee, therefore, the order passed by the Tax Board, is confirmed. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of provisions of section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994.
2. Mandatory vs. directory nature of rule 54 of the Rules of 1995.
3. Appellate authority's power to interfere in penalty imposition.
4. Definition of "material particulars" in the context of tax evasion.

Analysis:
1. The revision petition challenged the order of the Rajasthan Tax Board, which upheld the deletion of a penalty under section 78(5) of the Act amounting to Rs. 39,895. The dispute arose from a case where the respondent-assessee's goods were intercepted, and a penalty was imposed for leaving certain columns of declaration form ST-18C blank, indicating potential tax evasion. The assessing officer believed this omission showed an intention to evade tax.

2. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) later deleted the penalty, finding that the blank columns were likely due to inadvertence rather than deliberate evasion. This decision was upheld by the Tax Board, which considered all relevant documents produced and concluded that the blank column was not indicative of tax evasion. The petitioner-Department argued that even one blank column should be considered a violation, citing a Supreme Court judgment.

3. The High Court analyzed the Supreme Court judgment cited by the petitioner, focusing on the concept of "material particulars" in the context of tax declarations. The Court emphasized that certain key details like quality, weight, description, and value of goods are crucial, while other columns, like invoice number and date, may not be as critical for penalty imposition. The Court distinguished the present case from the Supreme Court's ruling, stating that in this instance, the omission of the invoice number and date did not constitute a violation of "material particulars."

4. The Court concluded that since all essential details were filled in the declaration form, except for the invoice number and date, the penalty imposition was unwarranted. It held that the Tax Board and Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) were justified in deleting the penalty, as the omission of these specific details did not amount to tax evasion. The Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the decision in favor of the respondent-assessee and against the petitioner-Department.