9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 895X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) is contrary to the judgment of the honourable apex court in Guljag Industries v. Commercial Taxes Officer reported in [2007 (8) TMI 344 - SUPREME Court] wherein the honourable apex court held that mens rea is not essential ingredient for contravention of section 78(2) of the Act. Apart from above, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Rajasthan Tax Board, both have set aside the penalty order on the ground that penalty order has been passed against the owner of the goods, whereas penalty order could not have been passed against owner of the goods for an offence relating to the period prior to March 22, 2002. The reason assigned by both the appellate authorities is illegal and contrary to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, order could not have been passed against owner of the goods and it could have been passed only against incharge of the vehicle/goods. Being aggrieved with the same, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Tax Board, which was dismissed vide judgment dated April 3, 2007, which is under challenge in this revision petition preferred on behalf of the Revenue. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that admittedly declaration form ST-18A of the Act was not produced at the time of checking of vehicle and subsequently along with reply to show-cause notice before the assessing officer. Therefore, penalty under section 78(5) of the Act was rightly imposed by the assessing officer. So far as second ground for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g assigned by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) is contrary to the judgment of the honourable apex court in Guljag Industries v. Commercial Taxes Officer reported in [2007] 9 VST 1 (SC); [2007] 7 SCC 269, wherein the honourable apex court held that mens rea is not essential ingredient for contravention of section 78(2) of the Act. Apart from above, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Rajasthan Tax Board, both have set aside the penalty order on the ground that penalty order has been passed against the owner of the goods, whereas penalty order could not have been passed against owner of the goods for an offence relating to the period prior to March 22, 2002. The reason assigned by both the appellate authorities is illegal and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
