2013 (6) TMI 172 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

No availability of Form ST 18 A with truck - penalty - Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 - held that - Revenue has failed to show any material to prove that before passing of the order dated 7.1.2005 any notice was served upon the respondent-firm. The respondent-firm cannot be represented through the driver of the vehicle in absence of any authority given to him by the respondent-firm. - No penalty - Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 without providing an opportunity of hearing to the respondent.
2. Dismissal of the appeal by Rajasthan Tax Board against the order of Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) based on lack of opportunity of hearing.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The case involved the imposition of a penalty on a respondent firm for not having Form ST 18A during the transportation of goods. The Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the respondent's appeal, stating that no opportunity of hearing was given before imposing the penalty. The Rajasthan Tax Board also upheld this decision, emphasizing the importance of providing a fair hearing before imposing penalties under Section 78(5) of the Act. The petitioner argued that the penalty was rightfully imposed due to the absence of the required form. However, the court found that no notice was served on the respondent firm before the penalty order, and the driver of the truck could not represent the firm without proper authorization. Consequently, the court dismissed the revision petition, suggesting the petitioner to issue a fresh order after granting the respondent a fair opportunity to be heard.

Issue 2: The Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) order, which was based on the lack of opportunity of hearing provided to the respondent. The court reviewed the orders of the Tax Board and the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals), noting the consistent finding that no proper hearing was granted before imposing the penalty. The petitioner's counsel failed to demonstrate any evidence of serving a notice to the respondent firm before the penalty order. As a result, the court found no justification to interfere with the decisions of the Tax Board and the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) and upheld the dismissal of the appeal. The court emphasized the importance of affording the respondent a fair opportunity to present their case before any penalty imposition.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the significance of providing a fair opportunity of hearing to the concerned party before imposing penalties under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. The court emphasized the procedural fairness and the need for proper notification and representation during such proceedings. The dismissal of the revision petition indicated the court's adherence to the principles of natural justice and the right to be heard, while also allowing the petitioner the option to reissue the order after ensuring due process for the respondent firm.