2013 (5) TMI 819 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

If by mistake some of the documents were not readily available at the time of checking, the principles of natural justice might require opportunity being given to produce the same

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Rajasthan Tax Board in Rectification Application, Mistake apparent on the face of record, Rectificatory order under section 37 of Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, Incomplete declaration form ST-18A, Interpretation of judgment in Guljag Industries case, Principles of natural justice, Remand to assessing officer, Penalty proceedings, Opportunity of fresh hearing.

Analysis:
The petitioner-assessee challenged the order of the Rajasthan Tax Board in a Rectification Application, arguing that there was no mistake apparent on the face of the record justifying the rectificatory order. The counsel contended that the Tax Board's decision was impermissible under the Act, as only mistakes apparent on the face of the record could be rectified. Additionally, the petitioner asserted that the case involved an incomplete declaration form ST-18A, citing the judgment in Guljag Industries case as precedent for remanding such matters back to the assessing officer for fresh consideration.

The respondents, on the other hand, argued that a mistake was apparent, justifying the rectificatory order by the Tax Board. They maintained that the principles outlined in the Guljag Industries case had been considered by the Tax Board, and hence, the matter should not be remanded back to the assessing authority.

The judgment referred to the Guljag Industries case, emphasizing the importance of section 78(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, which mandates supporting goods in movement with the requisite declaration. The court highlighted the necessity of complete and accurate declaration forms for proper assessment of taxable goods, stating that incomplete forms hinder the assessing officer's ability to determine the taxable turnover. The judgment also clarified that mens rea is not essential for contravention of section 78(2), and non-compliance can lead to penalties under section 78(5).

Moreover, the court reiterated the need to follow principles of natural justice, as seen in previous cases where matters were remanded back to the assessing officer for fresh consideration. Consequently, the revision petition was partly allowed, quashing the orders of the authorities below and restoring the matter to the assessing authority for a fresh decision on penalty proceedings in accordance with the law outlined in the Guljag Industries case. The assessee was granted a new opportunity for a hearing, with specific notice of defects and deficiencies, and the assessing authority was directed to issue fresh orders within six months.

In conclusion, the judgment emphasized the importance of complete and accurate declaration forms for proper tax assessment, highlighted the consequences of non-compliance with section 78(2), and reiterated the application of principles of natural justice in tax matters.