9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 955X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case are that on June 9, 1999 vehicle No. RJ02/G 3428 was checked by the authorised officer and it was found that declaration form ST-18C was not accompanied with the goods carrying in the vehicle. Therefore, the assessing officer issued a notice for levying penalty under section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. In response to show-cause notice, the dealer appeared and submitted his written reply contending that the goods in question were meant for jobwork and these goods were rejected, therefore, they were being sent back. Therefore, declaration form ST-18C was not annexed with other documents. The assessee annexed the declaration form ST-18C along with reply to show-cause notice. The learned assessing officer was of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Tax Board, the Revenue has preferred this revision petition before this honourable court. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Tax Board has committed illegality in rejecting the appeal of the Department on the ground that the order under section 78(5) of the Act could not have been passed against owner of the goods before March 22, 2002, the date when section 78(5) was amended, whereas the honourable apex court in Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Bajaj Electricals Ltd. [2008] 18 VST 436 (SC); [2009] 1 SCC 308 has held that the expression person in charge of the goods used in section 78(5) includes the owner of the goods and amendment made in section 78(5) on March 22, 2002 was only clarificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g authority as well as Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), it is clear that declaration form ST-18C was produced before the assessing authority along with reply to showcause notice, but assessing authority was of the view that form ST-18C was not accompanied with the goods at the time of checking of the vehicle, therefore, there is breach of provisions of section 78(2) of the Act, consequently, penalty is leviable. The order of the assessing authority was set aside by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that, since declaration form ST-18C has been produced along with reply to showcause notice before the assessing authority, therefore, in view of the judgment of the honourable apex court and this court, the penalty is liable to be set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals) held that form ST-18C was produced along with reply to show-cause notice. As per State of Rajasthan v. D.P. Metals [2001] 124 STC 611 (SC); [2002] 1 SCC 279, the assessee had already produced the declaration form ST-18C along with reply to show-cause notice, therefore, the present case was fully covered by the decision of the apex court in D.P. Metals [2001] 124 STC 611 (SC); [2002] 1 SCC 279. The learned counsel for the Revenue does not dispute this factual aspect that declaration form ST-18C was produced by the assessee before the assessing authority along with the reply to show-cause notice. In these circumstances, the assessing officer was not right in levying penalty under section 78(5) of the Act. In view of above discus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
