2017 (1) TMI 63 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Imposition of penalty u/s 76(6) of the Act - incomplete form VAT-47 - declaration form VAT-49 was required to be carried and not VAT-47 - violation of provision of section 76 of the Act - Held that - there is a categorical finding of fact by the Tax Board that the assessee produced declaration form VAT-49, which was required to be carried, immediately in pursuance to a show cause notice issued - when it is a finding of fact noticed by all the three authorities that declaration form VAT-49 was placed on record in pursuance to a show cause notice, the penalty has rightly been deleted by the DC(A) and rightly upheld by the Tax Board - penalty set aside - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under section 76 of the Act for incomplete declaration form VAT-47.
2. Interpretation of the requirement to carry declaration forms VAT-47 and VAT-49 for transportation of goods.
3. Application of legal precedents in determining the penalty imposition.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the penalty imposed under section 76 of the Act by the Rajasthan Tax Board for an incomplete declaration form VAT-47. The petitioner contended that the penalty was justified due to the incomplete form. The counsel relied on the judgment in Guljag Industries v. CTO (2007) 7 SCC 269, emphasizing that carrying an incomplete form violates the Act.

2. The respondent argued that there was no requirement to carry declaration form VAT-47 in the case as it was a job work scenario, not a transportation from outside the State. The respondent further stated that the correct form, VAT-49, was produced promptly after a show cause notice, which was accepted by all authorities involved. The respondent supported the decision of the Tax Board in dismissing the appeal.

3. The High Court analyzed the arguments and found a crucial fact that the assessee had indeed produced the correct declaration form VAT-49 promptly after the show cause notice. The court referred to the judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan & Another v. D.P. Metals (2002) 1 SCC 279, to support the decision. The court concluded that since the correct form was submitted in response to the notice, the penalty imposition was not justified. Therefore, the court upheld the decision of the Tax Board, stating that there was no error or illegality warranting interference.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the decision of the Tax Board to delete the penalty under section 76 of the Act. The judgment highlighted the importance of promptly rectifying errors in documentation and following the correct legal procedures in such cases.