9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were in the course of a branch transfer and not sale. Admittedly prior to 30-3-2000, the goods in transit were not required to be accompanied by form ST-18A. The discrepancy in the value of goods as alleged in the documents accompanying goods in transit cannot per se entail any falsehood or forgery qua the documents in issue. It could have been a case of a mere inadvertent error. In any event ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8-5-2008, passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (hereinafter `the Board') holding that as Form ST-18A was not required to accompany the goods in transit in the course of stock transfer of goods prior to March 30, 2000, no penalty could have been levied on account of contents of the said form. The levy of penalty on the assessee u/s. 78 (5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 was set aside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that goods in transit were in the course of a branch transfer and not sale. Admittedly prior to 30-3-2000, the goods in transit were not required to be accompanied by form ST-18A. Section 78 (4) of the 1994 Act provides that where any goods in movement other than exempted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods a reasonable opportunity of being heard and holding an enquiry as required in law. This has not been done in the present case and the penalty was visited by the Assessing Officer upon the assessee on the mere discrepancy of value of goods in documents accompanying the goods. Counsel for the petitioner could not point out to the court as to the potential loss of tax to the office even in an ext ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
