9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, 1995 - Held that:- The Board has noted the fact that submission of declaration form ST18C along with the reply to show cause notice entailed compliance with the Section 78 (2) of the 1994 Act. In coming to this conclusion the Board relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. D.P. Metals [2001 (10) TMI 881 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. Mr. Ajay Ku ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, ACTO ORDER By The Court: A challenge has been made in this revision petition to the order dated 31-5-2003, passed by Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (hereinafter `the Board') dismissing the appeal against the order dated 6-2-2002 passed by the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) Commercial Taxes, where under the order of penalty under section 78 (5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (her ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Reply to show cause notice was filed by the assessee and along with the reply declaration form ST18C also filed. The Assessing Authority however took the view that as declaration form ST18C was not in accompaniment of the goods in transit its subsequent submission was of no avail. The respondent assessee was found in breach of Section 78(2) of the 1994 Act and liable to penalty of ₹ 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C 279]. Mr. Ajay Kumar Meena, ACO appearing in person for the department is not in a position to show as to how the enunciation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case D.P. Metals (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the case wherein the declaration form ST18C not in accompaniment of goods in transit at the time of checking was admittedly submitted along with the reply to show cause n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
