9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 450 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxIntention to evade sales tax - revision u/s 86 Rajasthan Sales Tax Act,1994 - Held that - The incharge of the goods had produced all the documents pertaining to the goods - it could not be said that there was any intention on the part of the assessee for evasion of the sales tax - Relying upon Tajinder Pal Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. 2002 (9) TMI 834 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT - concurrent findings of facts recorded by the appellate authority as well as by the Tax Board no need to interfere - no question of law involved Revision Petition Dismissed Decided against revenue.
Issues:
Challenge to order under Section 86 of Rajasthan Sales Tax Act,1994; Imposition of penalty under Section 78(10-A) of the Act; Appeal process and decisions by appellate authority and Tax Board. Analysis: The revision petition was filed challenging an order passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, where the Board dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner-appellant against the penalty imposed under Section 78(10-A) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. The penalty was imposed due to the respondent-assessee's violation of Section 78(2)(a) of the Act. The respondent had produced documents related to the goods but failed to get them checked at the respective check post. The appellate authority had quashed the penalty order, leading to the petitioner's appeal before the Board, which was subsequently dismissed. The petitioner argued that the penalty was rightly imposed as the documents were not checked at the check post. However, the court found no merit in this submission, noting that the goods' Incharge had produced all relevant documents, indicating no intention to evade sales tax. The court referenced a previous decision and highlighted that there were concurrent factual findings by the appellate authority and the Tax Board. As there was no legal question involved, the court declined to interfere with the decisions, leading to the dismissal of the revision petition. In conclusion, the court upheld the decisions of the appellate authority and the Tax Board, emphasizing the absence of any legal issues in the case. The petitioner's challenge to the penalty under Section 78(10-A) of the Act was dismissed, affirming that the respondent-assessee did not demonstrate any intent to evade sales tax, as evidenced by the production of all relevant documents.
|
