2016 (10) TMI 1186 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Penalty u/s 76(6) of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Form VAT-47 - builty alongwith other supporting documents including declaration Form VAT-47 bearing No.1542234 was found completely blank - Rule 53(1) (I) - Held that - from the order of the Tax Board it was found that though the issue appears to have been raised by the counsel for the petitioner and does find mention at page-2 of the impugned order, however, it appears that the Tax Board while upholding the order of the Dy. Commissioner (A) had merely observed that in view of the Notification dt. 30.03.2000, these being notified goods the declaration Form VAT-47 was required to be carried. However, the contention of the petitioner has been that under Rule 53(1)(i) quoted herein above, there was no necessity of carrying declaration Form VAT-47 which has not been considered by the Tax Board. Since there was no finding of existing Rule 53 (1) (i) quoted herein above it would be appropriate that let the Tax Board may come to a specific finding about the goods being transported whether in actuality fall within the definition of telecommunication goods and to re-decide the issue afresh. The matter is remanded back to the Tax Board to re-decide the matter afresh.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to penalty imposed under Sec. 76(6) of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a transporter, was found carrying goods purchased by one company for another company. The vehicle was intercepted, and despite producing relevant documents, a penalty was imposed under Sec. 76(6) of the Act for violation of provisions. The petitioner contended that the goods were for telecommunication use, and as per Rule 53(1)(i), a specific declaration form was not required. The petitioner argued that the bills indicated the goods were for telecommunication use, challenging the decision of the authorities. The respondent argued that all authorities found the declaration form blank, supporting the penalty imposed.

The Court considered the arguments and reviewed Rule 53, which stated that certain goods did not require a specific declaration form when transported for specific purposes, including telecommunication use. The Court noted that the Tax Board did not address the petitioner's argument regarding the necessity of the declaration form under Rule 53(1)(i). The Court directed the Tax Board to re-examine whether the goods fell within the definition of telecommunication goods and make a fresh decision within three months, emphasizing the need for a specific finding on this issue.

Therefore, the Court remanded the matter back to the Tax Board for a fresh decision considering the relevant rule and ordered the Registry to send a copy of the order to the Tax Board. The revision petition challenging the penalty was disposed of accordingly.