9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst the order of the Tax Board dated April 3, 2006, whereby the Tax Board allowed the appeal of the Revenue and upheld the penalty order under section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 whereby the assessing authority had imposed a penalty of Rs. 53,445 on the assessee. The goods (non-ferrous metal scrap) sold by the assessee to M/s. Balaji Trading Company, Shahdara, Delhi, were intercept ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ril 3, 2006. Challenging the said order in the present revision petition, learned counsel for the assessee submits that in the reply filed before the assessing authority, it was duly explained that the words "paid" in these two invoices was an inadvertent mistake and in fact, the goods were sold in the course of inter-State trade and commerce having CST liability and the assessee being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the decision of this court in the case of A. C.T.O. v. Yaswant & Company reported in [1994] 95 STC 374 that since the entries in the books of account of these inter-State sales made by the assessee was duly made and such books of account were duly produced before the assessing authority during the course of enquiry, there was no justification on the part of the assessing authority as well as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned the absence of a bilty at the time of checking in the said reply. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of the material available on record, this court is of the opinion that the tax board had erred in setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and upholding the levy of the penalty in the present case. Once, the assessee had owned up the transaction as a tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
