2014 (5) TMI 458 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Levy of penalty u/s 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 - Declaration form ST 18-A u/r 53 r/w Section 81 not completely filled up Held that - Only because invoice number and date was left to be filled in - the form could not have been re-used - when all material particulars namely quality, weight, description of the goods, value, name of the transporter, name of the consignor and consignee had been duly filled in, apprehension of the department that the form could have been re-used, is not sustainable - Tax Board as well as the DC (Appeals) justified in deleting the penalty imposed against the assessee - The order passed by the Tax Board is affirmed - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Revision petition under section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act,1994; Substantial questions of law regarding the penalty under Section 78(5) of the Act; Interpretation of provisions of Section 78(5) of the Act; Mandatory vs. directory nature of Rule 53 of the Rules of 1995; Circumventing provisions of law by Appellate Authorities; Interference by Appellate Authorities in penalty imposition.

Analysis:
The revision petition was filed by the petitioner department against the order of the Rajasthan Tax Board affirming the deletion of penalty under Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. The substantial questions of law raised included issues related to evidence on record, interpretation of penalty provisions, mandatory nature of form filling, circumvention of law by authorities, and interference in penalty imposition.

The facts of the case involved the interception of goods carried by the respondent-assessee, with one column of the declaration form left blank. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty for this, alleging tax evasion. However, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) deleted this penalty on appeal by the respondent-assessee.

The petitioner-department challenged this decision, arguing that the form should have been completely filled in, as per a subsequent judgment by the Hon'ble Apex Court. They contended that leaving a column blank, even inadvertently, indicated tax evasion. On the other hand, the respondent-assessee and their counsel supported the lower authorities' decision, stating that the blank column was not a material particular for penalty imposition.

The High Court analyzed the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and concluded that the filling of quality, weight, description, value, and other key particulars were crucial for penalty imposition, not just the invoice number and date. They distinguished the present case from the cited judgment and upheld the decision of the Tax Board and Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) to delete the penalty.

In light of the distinguishing features of the case, the High Court affirmed the decision to delete the penalty against the respondent-assessee, answering the questions of law in their favor. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.