9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 819X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner-assessee that the Tax Board decided the controversy in the instant case earlier by its order dated June 25, 2007 wherein the appeal of the respondent-Department was dismissed. Prior to that, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) also allowed the appeal of the petitioner-assessee. It is further submitted that the rectificatory order came to be passed by the Tax Board on April 29, 2011 and thereafter, final order was passed on June 17, 2011. He submitted that there is no justification for any rectificatory order or passing an order under section 37 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 as there is no mistake apparent on the face of record which could be rectified. According to him, it is a case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2007] 9 VST 1 (SC); [2007] 293 ITR 584 (SC); [2007] 7 SCC 269 held that object behind enacting section 78(5) is to emphasise loss of revenue and to provide a remedy for such loss. Section 78(2) is a mandatory provision and goods put in movement under local sales, imports, exports or inter-State transactions have to be supported by requisite declaration. The honourable apex court reproduced rules 53 and 54 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1995 (for short, the Rules ) and the prescribed form of declaration in forms ST-18A and 18C with its contents to be filled in by consignor and consignee. It is noticed that the said judgment is basically confined to cases where blank/incomplete form ST-18A/18C had accompanied the goods in movement. It was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accordingly, it directed the Department to dispose of the cases in accordance with law enunciated in the said case. It is noticed that thereafter, this court, considering all the facts and circumstances and the judgments, has expressed that principles of natural justice have to be followed and accordingly this court in the case of Commercial Taxes Officer v. Jain Tubes reported in [2011] 30 Tax Update 125, ACTO v. Hariom Company reported in [2011] 30 Tax Update 285 and so also the judgment of this court passed in the case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Madhusudan Soap Udyog [2014] 69 VST 81 (Raj) (SB Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 151 of 2011, decided on May 9, 2013) has remanded the matter back to the assessing officer to provid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
