9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 467X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dication by this court and are being disposed of by this common order. These petitions have been filed impugning the order dated January 22, 2009, passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, upholding the order dated July 28, 2007, passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur, setting aside the levy of penalty on the respondents-assessee under section 76(6) of the Rajasthan Value Added Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated/illegal and on this count alone penalty under section 76(6) of the Act of 2003 was levied. The matter was considered by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) in appeal, who taking into consideration the fact that all the requisite documents were in accompaniment of the goods in transit and that no inquiry was held to hold that there was any intent to evade the tax, set aside the order of penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inquiry was held by the assessing authority to conclude that the documentation by the respondent-assessee was deliberately conceived with an intent to evade the tax and that the penalty had been levied on mere suspicion. I have considered the impugned order dated January 22, 2009 and am of the considered view that as the goods in transit were accompanied by all requisite documents under sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t himself travel beyond his jurisdiction to pontificate on the issue of the irregularity of an inter-State sale being made by the respondent-assessee's Alwar office to its Morena office. This was beyond his jurisdiction. The overall context of the factual situation obtaining on the record of the case is indicative of a complete absence of any intent to evade the tax. In this view of the mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
