9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atter 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 honourable Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. D.P. Metals [2001 (10) TMI 881 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], wherein it was held that if the assessee was able to produce the relevant documents such as form ST-18C on receipt of notice, it would be sufficient compliance of law and no penalty can be imposed. As such the Tax Board upheld the order of the appellat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee to evade tax and yet imposed a penalty on a misinterpretation of section 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 ₹ 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 ST-18C was supplied on the first opportunity following notice and the transit was good in law. The order of the appellate authority has been upheld by the Tax Board. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the orders impugned. From the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on record, I am of the considered view that there was no mens rea of the assessee to evade tax, and the present case is fully covered by the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court in D.P. Metals [2001] 124 STC 611 (SC); [2002] 1 SCC 279, which 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 dated October 24, 2002, passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer. Accordingly, the revision petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
