9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (7) TMI 1075 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxPenalty u/s 78(5) - tax Board deleted penalty - Held that - in the light of the judgment of the honourable apex court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. D.P. Metals 2001 (10) TMI 881 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA wherein it has been held that when the declaration form and other documents were found to be in order and bill vouchers have been held to be genuine therefore, no case is made out for deviating from such findings of facts. Even otherwise, I do not find any illegality or error or perversity in the orders impugned and concurrent finding and, as such, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. No question of law arises - Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Challenge to deletion of penalty under section 78(5) of Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the deletion of penalty amounting to &8377; 54,530 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, in Appeal No. 3702 of 2005. The petitioner argued that the Tax Board decided the appeal summarily, referencing a provision related to the issue being covered by a Full Bench judgment prior to March 22, 2002. However, the petitioner contended that a subsequent judgment by the apex court in the case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Bajaj Electricals Ltd. contradicted the Tax Board's decision. The counsel acknowledged that both lower authorities found the declaration form ST-18A to be completely filled in, and the bills and builty were not deemed bogus or forged but rather genuine and admitted. Citing the apex court's judgment in State of Rajasthan v. D.P. Metals, which emphasized that when documents are found to be in order and genuine, there is no basis to deviate from such factual findings, the petitioner sought a decision in favor of the Department. The court, after considering the arguments, found no illegality, error, or perversity in the impugned orders and the concurrent findings of the lower authorities. It was noted that the bills and vouchers were genuine, and no question of law arose in the case. Consequently, the sales tax revision petition and the stay application were both dismissed.
|
