2015 (8) TMI 1058 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Failure to furnish Declaration form ST 18A Levy of penalty Vehicle carrying goods was checked and it was found that other documents were there but declaration form ST 18A was not found, and therefore, there was contravention of section 78(2) of Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 Assessing authority after issuing show-cause notice levied penalty against which respondent-assessee had filed appeal, which was allowed Held that - not disputed that when vehicle was checked, person-in charge of goods had produced all necessary documents It appears that respondent had also produced declaration form ST 18A, along with his reply It was not case of petitioner that any of said documents were found to be false or bogus in inquiry Neither it is case of non-compliance by not carrying documents nor false or forged documents or declaration is submitted as has been noticed in case of State of Rajasthan v. D. P. Metals 2001 (10) TMI 881 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Therefore, penalty under section of Act could not be levied Thus, findings arrived at by appellate authority, could not be said to be erroneous Decided against Revisionist.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order under Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994.
2. Compliance with section 78(2) of the said Act.
3. Penalty under section 78(5) of the said Act.
4. Legal position on penalty imposition.

Analysis:
The petitioner-Department filed a sales tax revision petition under section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, challenging an order passed by the Member, Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer. The issue arose when a vehicle carrying goods was checked, and the declaration form ST 18A was not found, leading to a penalty under section 78(5) of the Act. The appellate authority allowed the appeal against the penalty, prompting the petitioner to appeal to the Board, which also dismissed the appeal.

The petitioner argued that non-compliance with section 78(2) of the Act warranted the penalty imposition, as the necessary declaration form was not found filled in ink. However, the court found no merit in the petition as all necessary documents were produced during the check, including the declaration form ST 18A. The court cited a legal precedent stating that the penalty under section 78(5) is applicable in cases of non-compliance with section 78(2) or submission of false documents. Since the documents were submitted and not found to be false, the penalty could not be levied.

Based on the legal position outlined by the court and the absence of any falsified documents, the appellate authority and the Board's decisions were deemed correct. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, concluding that it lacked merit.