9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 790X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 84 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 by the petitioner against the order dated June 5, 2009 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (in short, the Board ) in Appeal No. 1837/2006 whereby the penalty under section 78(10A) was deleted. The brief facts emerging from the face of record are that the respondent herein is a driver, while carrying goods (mustard oil) on July 20, 2005 in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lation and imposed penalty of ₹ 4,84,208 under section 78(10A). The contentions of the respondent-driver was not accepted and disbelieved though all the necessary documents were available with the driver of the vehicle and there was no violation of provisions of the Sales Tax Act, however, penalty as aforesaid was imposed. Against the order of the penalty, an appeal was filed before the D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed and the penalty was rightly imposed. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner-Department and after going through the material on record, it is found that the facts of the instant case are squarely covered with the facts of the aforesaid judgment in the case State of Rajasthan v. Tajiander Pal [2003] 6 Tax Up-Date 84 and the aforesaid judgment is fully applicable to the facts of the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
