9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 468X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated April 29, 2010 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer upholding the order dated June 18, 2009 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Tax, Alwar, whereunder the Deputy Commissioner had set aside the order dated August 8, 2008, passed by the assessing authority levying penalty under section 76(6) of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter the Act of 2003 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the reply that the form was not sent in accompaniment of the goods in transit owing to the driver's mistake. The assessing authority however dealt with reply of the respondent-assessee cursorily and merely in view of the fact that the aforesaid form was not found in accompaniment of the goods in transit at the time of checking proceeded to impose penalty under section 76(6) of the Act of 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authenticity and the submission of form VAT-47 along with the reply to the show-cause notice indicated the bona fide of the transaction and negatived the presence of any mens rea of evasion of tax to warrant imposition of penalty. The said order was put to challenge by the Revenue before the Rajasthan Tax Board. The Revenue's appeal to the Tax Board also came to be dismissed vide order dated A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it would be indicative of bona fides and compliant with law and would not warrant the levy of penalty. The facts of the present case are on all fours with the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court referred to above. In this view of the matter, the Rajasthan Tax Board has committed no error in upholding the order dated June 18, 2009, passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). I therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
