9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 629X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-Department, under section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (in short, the Act ) against the order dated July 5, 2007 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (in short, The Board ) in Appeal No. 1630 of 2006, which upheld the order dated May 21, 2005 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Bharatpur, (in short, the DC (A) ), who had deleted the levy of penalty of ₹ 66,215 imposed by the learned Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer (in short, the ACTO ), under section 78(5) of the said Act. The brief facts leading to this case are that on July 3, 2005 the goods, i.e., iron rods were being transmitted by a vehicle bearing No. RJ-02G-2468 from Bhiwadi to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -Department preferred an appeal before the Tax Board, Ajmer, who after going through the material on record upheld the order passed by the DC (A) vide its order dated July 5, 2007 holding that no penalty could be leviable as the form No. ST-18C was made available immediately on demand, therefore, the judgment of State of Rajasthan v. D. P. Metals [2001] 124 STC 611 (SC), is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and the instant case is covered by the said judgment of the apex court. Being dissatisfied with the order of the Tax Board, Ajmer, the petitioner-Department has preferred instant revision petition and the following questions of law were admitted for hearing on May 13, 2008: (i) Whether the impugned order of lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and there was some cutting in column 10 with regard to vehicle number. She further argued that the form No. ST-18C is mandatory to be carried and produced at the time of checking and on demand by the ACTO. Since, the form No. ST-18-C was not available and it was produced later on and even the said declaration form had cuttings therefore, the ACTO was quite justified in levying the penalty and the penalty was rightly imposed and it should be sustained. Mr. T. C. Jain, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent argued that in this case penalty under law is not leviable for the reason that section 78(1) prescribes levy of penalty, if there is tax evasion whereas when the goods are under stock transfer the provisions of se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Metals [2001] 124 STC 611 (SC), which is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the relevant observations are quoted hereunder (page 635 in 124 STC): . . . Once the ingredients of section 78(5) are established, after giving a hearing and complying with the principles of natural justice, there is no discretion not to levy or levy lesser amount of penalty. If by mistake some of the documents are not readily available at the time of checking, principles of natural justice may require some opportunity being given to produce the same. . . After the judgment of honourable apex court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. D. P. Metals [2001] 124 STC 611 (SC), this court in several other cases, namely: (1) A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
