9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 858 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxLevy of penalty - vehicle was not carrying declaration Form ST-18A - violation of 78(2) read with Rule 53 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. - Held that - non carrying of declaration Form ST-18A and non filing of material particulars and it has also come to the conclusion that mens rea is not essential in such proceedings. - In the light of above non carrying of declaration form is a serious infirmity and also when it was not produced despite specific notice, - Levy of penalty confirmed.
Issues Involved:
1. Non-carrying of declaration Form ST-18A. 2. Imposition of penalty under Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. 3. Applicability of judgments from higher courts on the issue. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Non-carrying of Declaration Form ST-18A: The primary issue revolves around the interception of a vehicle carrying goods without the mandatory declaration Form ST-18A. The vehicle, bearing Registration No. RJ-31/G-1043, was found transporting 234 bags of Binola from Saindwa (M.P.) to Kishangarh Renwal (Raj.) without the required form. Despite the presence of other documents such as GR No.496 dt.05/01/2001, bills, and vouchers, the absence of Form ST-18A constituted a violation of Section 78(2) read with Rule 53 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. The respondent acknowledged the mistake and agreed to pay the penalty. 2. Imposition of Penalty under Section 78(5): The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty under Section 78(5) due to the non-carrying of Form ST-18A. The Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the penalty on the grounds that the goods were transported before 22.03.2002, implying that the penalty could only be imposed on the vehicle's in-charge/driver, not the owner. The Tax Board upheld this decision, referencing a full bench judgment in the case of Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Flying Squad Vs. M/s. Bajrang Timber Mart, Ladnu, Nagaur, which stated that if other documents contained all necessary particulars, Form ST-18A was not required, and no penalty could be levied on the owner. 3. Applicability of Judgments from Higher Courts: The petitioner argued that the declaration Form ST-18A was mandatory and that the Tax Board's finding was perverse. They cited the Supreme Court's reversal of the Tax Board's judgment in the Bajrang Timber Mart case through the case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Bajaj Electricals Limited (2009) 1 SCC 308. The Supreme Court clarified that the duty to fill and furnish Form ST-18A rested with the purchasing dealer, and penalties could be imposed on the owner if the form was not carried. The court emphasized that Section 78(5) imposed strict liability for non-compliance, and mens rea was not required, as established in Guljag Industries Vs. Commercial Taxes Officer (2007) 7 SCC 269. The court concluded that the non-carrying of Form ST-18A was a serious violation, and the penalty was justified. The judgment of the larger bench in ACTO Vs. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (2015) 82 VST 200 (Raj.) also supported this view, stating that mens rea was not essential in such cases. Conclusion: The Rajasthan High Court quashed and set aside the Tax Board's order, restoring the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. The court held that the non-carrying of declaration Form ST-18A was a significant infraction, and the penalty was rightly imposed under Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. The petition by the revenue succeeded, emphasizing the strict liability and the non-requirement of mens rea in such statutory obligations.
|
