9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (2) TMI 476 - HC - VAT / Sales TaxScope of Casual Dealer - whether the respondent can be treated to be a casual trader or not? - HELD THAT - This court finds that the Tax Board has considered the judgment passed by this court in identical matter i.e.Sales Tax Officer v. Jagdish Prasad 2013 (5) TMI 1028 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT wherein the department's appeal was rejected by the High Court and it was held that such a person who gets the vehicle for his own use would fall within the provisions of Section 10 (B) (I) (II) and would have to be taken as casual trader. Since the assessment had been done more than two years back, the provisions of limitation with regard to bar of reopening assessments after two years would therefore apply - Keeping in view thereof, the Tax Board has found that the action taken by the present petitioner beyond limitation and the order dated 9-10-2012 was accordingly set aside. Revision petition dismissed.
Issues:
Challenge against judgment of Rajasthan Tax Board regarding liability to pay entry tax based on the definition of casual trader. Analysis: The revision petition challenged the Rajasthan Tax Board's judgment, which allowed the respondent's appeal. The petitioner argued that the respondent could not be considered a casual trader based on the definition clause. The respondent had brought a vehicle from outside Rajasthan without paying sales tax in the state, making them liable for entry tax. However, the court noted a previous judgment where a similar situation was considered, and it was held that such a person would fall under the provisions of being a casual trader. As the assessment was done more than two years prior, the limitation period for reopening assessments applied. Consequently, the Tax Board found the petitioner's actions beyond the limitation and set aside the order. The court observed that there was no miscarriage of justice by the Tax Board, and it did not exceed its powers. Therefore, the court concluded that no further interference was necessary, leading to the dismissal of the revision petition.
|
