9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 272 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxImposition of penalty u/s 78(5) of the RST Act, 1994 - Declaration Form ST-18A - produced one day later of the vehicle getting intercepted, and also many columns were left blank - is imposition of penalty justified? - Held that - even the description of goods, weight, value, and other factors which are required to be taken into consideration, has not been filled in by the respondent assessee. The AO did highlight in the assessment order that even vehicle number, name of the transporter and other particulars were not filled in. The judgment of Apex court in the case of Guljag Industries 2007 (8) TMI 344 - SUPREME Court , so also the Larger Bench decision of this court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 2015 (11) TMI 1078 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT , are squarely applicable in the facts of the present case and the Revenue is not required to prove mens rea in such cases when it is apparent that the goods are being carried with the intention of evasion of tax. Penalty justified - petition allowed - decided in favor of AO-Revenue.
Issues:
1. Validity of penalty imposed under section 78(5) of the RST Act, 1994 for evasion of tax due to incomplete declaration form. Analysis: The case involved a challenge against an order passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, where the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, upholding the decision of the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals). The dispute arose when a vehicle carrying goods was intercepted, and the driver failed to produce a complete declaration form ST-18A. Subsequently, a partially filled declaration form was provided the next day. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty under section 78(5) of the RST Act, 1994, due to the incomplete declaration form, suspecting an intention to evade taxes. The Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tax Board both ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that there was no intention of tax evasion since the declaration form was eventually submitted, along with other supporting documents. The Revenue contended that the incomplete declaration form indicated an intent to evade taxes, relying on the judgment of the Apex court in the case of Guljag Industries v. CTO (2007) 7 SCC 269. The respondent argued that the incomplete form was due to an oversight and that the other documents supported the legitimate transportation of goods. They also highlighted that the requirement for a completely filled declaration form was introduced after the incident in question. Both appellate authorities found no intention of tax evasion based on the evidence presented. The court analyzed the arguments, emphasizing that the incomplete declaration form did not comply with the law, even considering subsequent amendments. Referring to the judgment in Guljag Industries, the court held that carrying an incomplete declaration form could be presumed as an attempt to evade taxes, without the need to prove mens rea. Consequently, the court found the decisions of the Tax Board and Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) to be erroneous in light of the legal precedents. In conclusion, the court allowed the petition, setting aside the Tax Board's order and upholding the decision of the Assessing Officer to impose the penalty for tax evasion due to the incomplete declaration form.
|
