9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nge has been made in this revision petition to the order dated October 24, 2002, passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, whereby the Tax Board has been pleased to uphold the order dated August 28, 2000, passed by the appellate authority, Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes setting aside the order dated October 10, 1999, whereby penalty was levied on the assessee under section 78(5) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 78(5) of the 1994 Act, to hold that in view of the initial absence of form ST-18C with the goods in transit levy of a penalty was automatic-in this case Rs. 56,465. The appellate authority on appeal corrected misinterpretation of the assessing authority in levying penalty without coming to a conclusion that the goods were being transported with the intent to evade tax or that declaration in form ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no matter what intent to evade tax was absent. It was further held that on the mere unavailability of declaration form ST-18C along with other documents in the first instance a penalty under section 78(5) of the 1994 Act was mechanically applied overlooking the subsequent furnishing of the form in issue along with the reply to show-cause notice. The Tax Board relied upon the judgment of the honou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arise from a case under the Rajasthan sales tax itself. The said judgment has not yet been overruled, or otherwise explained or varied in another judgment by the honourable Supreme Court. In terms of article 141 of the Constitution of India, the said judgment constitutes valid law binding on all courts and authorities within the country. I do not find any error or infirmity in the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
