9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (10) TMI 960X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td. [2008 (11) TMI 374 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], but order of the assessing authority was rightly set aside by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), in view of judgment of the honourable apex court in State of Rajasthan v. D.P. Metals [2001 (10) TMI 881 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. Consequently, the impugned order of the Tax Board is set aside, but revision of petitioner/Revenue is also dismissed in view of judgment of the honourable apex court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. D.P. Metals [supra]. The order of Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) to the above extent is upheld. - 219 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 26-10-2010 - NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN , JJ. NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Briefly stated the facts of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer filed an appeal before the Rajas than Tax Board. The Tax Board vide its order dated March 23, 2007 dismissed the appeal only on one ground that since the vehicle was checked before March 22, 2002, the date when section 78(5) was amended, therefore, penalty order could not have been passed against the owner of the goods. The said order of the Tax Board is under challenge in this revision petition. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that reason assigned by the Tax Board for dismissing the appeal of the Revenue is contrary to the judgment of the honourable apex court rendered in Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Bajaj Electricals Ltd. [2008] 18 VST 436; [2009] 1 SCC 308 and pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tax Board committed an illegality in dismissing the appeal of the Revenue on the ground that order under section 78(5) could not have been passed against owner of the goods in view of ratio laid down by the honourable apex court in Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Bajaj Electricals Ltd. [2008] 18 VST 436; [2009] 1 SCC 308, but it is an admitted fact, which has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the Revenue or petitioner also, that the declaration form ST 18C had already been produced before the assessing officer along with reply to show-cause notice, but the said point has not been considered by the Tax Board while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. In State of Rajasthan v. D.P. Metals [2001] 124 STC 611; [2002] 1 SCC 27 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
