2017 (1) TMI 201

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the case of Indian Oil [2015 (11) TMI 1078 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] is squarely applicable to the facts of the case, where it was held that if the declaration form is not produced or not found in a case, it can safely be held that the goods were being transported with the intention of evasion of tax. Penalty sustains - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J. For the Petitioner : Tanvi Sahai For the Respondent : Alkesh Sharma ORDER 1. The instant petition is directed against order dt 24.9.2002 passed by Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, in Appeal No.571/1995/Jaipur. Assessment year is 1994-95. 2. The brief facts noticed in the instant petition is that vehicle bearing no.DL 1LA 5620 was checked by the of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... allowing of the appeal and deleting the penalty. 4. Learned counsel for the Revenue vehemently contended that the AO as well as DC(A), both found as a finding of fact that though the purchasers came from distant places like Jhunjhunu, Kishangarh and Kota, but no proper explanation was offered as to why the goods were to be delivered from the office of assessee, after it were remitted by Kores (India) Hyderabad. Learned counsel also contended that since the goods came from outside the State, declaration form ST-18A was mandatory and the same being not available nor produced later-on, the penalty is inevitable in the light of judgment of the apex court in the case of Guljag Industries vs CTO, (2007) 7 SCC 269, so also the Larger Bench decis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to the different purchasers, why it was to be delivered at the office of respondent at Jaipur. There are contradiction in the statements which was rightly noticed by both, the AO as well as DC(A). If the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee is accepted that the goods were not notified as has been argued by the learned counsel for the assessee that Telephone Call Monitors fall in the category of electronic goods and, therefore, declaration form ST- 18A was not needed, however, in my view R.53 of the RST Act is quite clear and it envisages that even in a case of import from outside the State, declaration form ST- 18A is required to be produced and in the instant case admittedly the declaration form ST-18A was neither produced a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X