9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 916X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such a generalised user of word “were not aware” is not sufficient - compliance of Rule 53 ought to have been made - The Rice falls in the category of notified goods thus there was requirement of carrying declaration form with the goods - The dealers ought to have carried the declaration form with the goods and came heavily on the dealers who though carried the declaration form but were blank or/and incomplete - Such declaration forms were non-est and Department was correct and justified in imposing penalty u/s. 78(5), whereas it is a non carrying of the declaration form - If declaration form is produced later on, on demand then plea of the assessee could be accepted but neither there was a request by the respondent-assessee nor he produced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cord, vitiates the order under law ? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and on proper interpretation of the provisions of the Section 78(5) of the Act of 1994 the assessing authority was justified in passing the order imposing tax penalty and interest ? (iii) Whether the Appellate Authority and the learned Tax Board can circumvent the provisions of law by drawing their own interpretation and conclusions which infact were never intended by the legislature ? (iv) Whether the Appellate Authority can interfere in the order passed by the Assessing Authority to the extent that the penalty imposed is excessive and the lenient view should be taken, whether such view is sustainable or is contrary to the mandatory provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed by the DC(A). 5. Hence, this revision petition. 6. Ms. Tanvi Sahai, appearing on behalf of Mr. RB Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner-department, submits that carrying of 256 bags of rice without having declaration form No. ST-18A was totally unjustified and un-fair on the part of the respondent-assessee. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was a Notification issued by the Government of Rajasthan, dated 4.12.2000 whereby there is requirement of carrying declaration form No. ST-18A in a case where the rice is transmitted and such plea could not have been taken by the respondent-assessee that the respondent was not aware of the provisions of law. She further submitted that both the lower Appellate Authorities have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders passed by the Tax Board and the DC(A). After going through the orders impugned, in my view, the compliance of the provisions of the Act, have to be carried in letter and spirit and when there is requirement of carrying declaration form with the goods then the mere plea that the respondent was not aware of the fact of Notification, is not proper, in my view, such a generalised user of word were not aware is not sufficient. Notification was issued on 4.12.2000 and compliance of Rule 53 of the Rules ought to have been made. Since, the Rice falls in the category of notified goods then there was requirement of carrying declaration form with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
