2016 (12) TMI 5 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Imposition of penalty u/s 76(6) of the Act - Rajasthan VAT Act 2003 - VAT declaration form 47 - punching of form - Held that - reliance placed on the decision of the case of ITC Agrotech Limited through its Manager Ramlal Verma Versus Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Anti Evasion 1 Circle 2 Jaipur 2016 (9) TMI 1086 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT where it was held that punching was introduced later-on and if the declaration form is not duly punched then it is a material deficiency and penalty even in such cases is required to be imposed. The punching admittedly having not been done it being a material deficiency the order passed by the Tax Board is just and proper - the declaration form has to be complete in all respect and finding the form even incomplete in respect of material particulars and punching the order of Tax Board does not call for any interference by this court - penalty rightly imposed - petition dismissed - decided against appellant-assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Penalty imposition for deficiencies in VAT declaration form 47.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns a petition against an order passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. The case revolves around the interception of a vehicle transporting Ammonium Nitrate without producing VAT declaration form 47. The driver's statement revealed the absence of additional documents related to the transport. Subsequently, a penalty was levied under section 76(6) of the Rajasthan VAT Act due to deficiencies in the form and suspicions of tax evasion. The Dy. Com. (Appeals) and the Tax Board upheld the penalty citing precedents like Guljag Industries vs CTO. The petitioner argued that the form was not deficient based on previous judgments and compliance with material particulars. However, the Revenue contended that deficiencies existed, including the lack of punching the form, which is a statutory requirement under the VAT Act.

The court, after considering the arguments and orders, emphasized that all three authorities agreed on the presence of discrepancies in the declaration form. Referring to previous judgments like M/s Agrotech Foods Ltd, the court highlighted the importance of punching the form as a material deficiency, justifying the imposition of a penalty. The court found that the form was incomplete regarding material particulars and punching, aligning with the decision of the Tax Board and the principles established in the Guljag Industries case. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, affirming the validity of the Tax Board's order based on the deficiencies in the VAT declaration form 47.