2016 (11) TMI 976 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Imposition of penalty u/s 78 (5) - declaration form ST-18A - Held that - Though the Dy. Comm. (Appeals) has elaborately discussed that the goods were purchased from Steel Authority of India Ltd and was being supplied to Rajasthan State Electricity Board an undertaking of state and exemption certificate was also available with the driver/incharge and produced which proved that even in the case declaration form ST 18-A may not be required to be carried. There is a specific finding of fact recorded by the Dy. Comm. (Appeals) and not controverted even by the Assessing Officer about such exemption certificate being available - the order imposing penalty by the AO was not justified and had rightly been deleted by Dy. Comm. (Appeals) and upheld by the Tax Board though for different reasons - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under Section 78(5) for not carrying Declaration Form ST-18A.
2. Appeal against the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer.
3. Consideration of exemption certificate by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals).
4. Appeal by the Revenue before the Tax Board.
5. Relying on the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Tax Board.
6. Challenge to the order of the Tax Board based on a Supreme Court judgment.
7. Justification of penalty imposition and its deletion by the Appellate Authority.
8. Finding of fact regarding exemption certificate availability.
9. Absence of legal question arising from the Tax Board's order.
10. Dismissal of the petition due to lack of merit.

Analysis:
The case involved the imposition of a penalty under Section 78(5) for not carrying Declaration Form ST-18A during the transportation of goods. The Assessing Officer imposed the penalty, which was appealed by the assessee before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). The Deputy Commissioner considered the exemption certificate provided by the assessee, which led to the deletion of the penalty. Subsequently, the Revenue appealed before the Tax Board, which dismissed the appeal based on a judgment of the Larger Bench of the Tax Board in another case.

The petitioner challenged the Tax Board's order, arguing that the judgment relied upon had been overruled by the Supreme Court in a different case. The petitioner contended that the absence of the declaration form led to the presumption of tax evasion, citing a Supreme Court judgment in a related matter. Despite the absence of representation from the respondent, the court examined the impugned order and found that while the Tax Board's reliance on the earlier judgment was incorrect, the penalty deletion by the Appellate Authority was justified based on the availability of the exemption certificate.

The court noted that the Deputy Commissioner had extensively discussed the facts, including the purchase source of the goods and their destination, leading to the conclusion that the penalty imposition by the Assessing Officer was unwarranted. The court upheld the deletion of the penalty by the Appellate Authority, emphasizing the existence of a factual finding regarding the exemption certificate. Ultimately, the court found no legal question arising from the Tax Board's order, leading to the dismissal of the petition for lack of merit.