2005 (11) TMI 444

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rd rejected the Revenue's appeals as well as the assessee's cross-objections. The Revenue in revision came before this court on the ground that the Tax Board has erred in setting aside the penalty under section 65 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, which was imposed by the assessing authority on the ground that C forms received from the purchasing dealer of Kerala were not found to be genuine a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ore the authorities below that the goods in question were sold by him in the course of inter-State trade through commission agents and the C forms in question were also received through the agents and therefore, he had no knowledge of such C forms being not genuine or fake. The learned assessing authority while rejecting the said explanation of the assessee proceeded merely on the basis of assumpt .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is own unfounded assumptions to impose the penalty in question upon the selling dealer before him. The said penalty was therefore, set aside by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and such setting aside of penalty was upheld by the Tax Board also. From the perusal of the impugned orders, it does not appear that the assessing authority made any effort to establish the collusion of the selling dealer .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X