2013 (5) TMI 907 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Imposition of penalty u/s 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act 1994 - incomplete declaration form ST/18/A - Held 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 consigner 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 - petition dismissed - decided against Revenue-petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1) Admissibility of revision petition filed by the petitioner department against the order of the Tax Board.
2) Imposition of penalty under Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 for incomplete declaration form ST/18/A.
3) Interpretation of "material particulars" in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Guljag Industries case.
4) Application of the judgment in Guljag Industries case to the facts of the present case.
5) Decision on the revision petition and stay application.

Detailed Analysis:

1) The revision petition was admitted by the High Court, filed by the petitioner department challenging the Tax Board's order. The Tax Board had affirmed the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to delete the penalty under Section 78(5) of the Act amounting to Rs. 55,464 imposed on the respondent-assessee.

2) The penalty was imposed due to a partly blank declaration form ST/18/A found during a vehicle check. The assessing officer contended that even one or two columns left blank constituted a violation of Section 78(5). The respondent argued that only the invoice number and date were inadvertently omitted, while all other particulars were complete. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) accepted this explanation, leading to the Tax Board also ruling in favor of the respondent.

3) The key issue revolved around the interpretation of "material particulars" as per the Guljag Industries case. The petitioner argued that leaving one column blank fell within the material particulars based on the Apex Court's judgment, emphasizing that mens rea was irrelevant in such cases.

4) The High Court analyzed the Guljag Industries judgment and concluded that "material particulars" referred to essential details like quality, weight, description of goods, and value. Since all other relevant columns were filled, except for the invoice number and date, the Court distinguished the present case from the Guljag Industries case.

5) The Court held that the Apex Court's judgment was not directly applicable to the present case, as the omission of the invoice number and date did not constitute a violation of material particulars. Consequently, the Court dismissed the revision petition and stay application, ruling in favor of the respondent-assessee.