9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arger Bench decision of this court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. [2015 (11) TMI 1078 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT], are squarely applicable in the facts of the present case and the Revenue is not required to prove mens rea in such cases when it is apparent that the goods are being carried with the intention of evasion of tax. Penalty justified - petition allowed - decided in favor of AO-Revenue. - S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 352 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 28-11-2016 - Jainendra Kumar Ranka, JJ. For the Petitioner : Menal Ghiya For the Respondent : Sarvesh Jain ORDER 1. Instant petition is directed against order dt 26.4.2002 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, in Appeal No.1150/2000/Jaipur, whereby t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e AO, after hearing the respondent who showed urgency, reiterated the fact and no further reply was filed. However, the AO being not satisfied, imposed penalty u/s 78(5) of the RST Act, 1994. 3. The matter was assailed before the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals), who primarily went on the issue that there was no intention of evasion of tax and since the declaration form was filed and other bills and vouchers wherein complete information was available, the DC(A) deleted the penalty. 4. On a further appeal before the Tax Board by the Revenue, also resulted into dismissal of the appeal on the same reasoning and upheld the order of DC(A). 5. Learned counsel for the Revenue contended that the goods were being transported with the intention of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6.3.1999, even the same is inapplicable and even the assessee could have carried merely a declaration form and not necessarily complete in all respect. Learned counsel further contended that both the appellate courts have come to a concurrent finding and which is not required to be interfered in these proceedings. 7. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the issue about valid declaration form filled in completely in all respect or not, has been raised for the first time. Learned counsel further contended that carrying declaration form which was admittedly not filled in, in respect of material particulars, is no declaration form in the eye of law and sec.78(2)(a) of the Act mandates that declaration form is requi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... my view, even if the subsequent Notification brought in from 26.3.1999 is concerned, this court still holds that the declaration form which was being carried by the assessee was not in accordance with law despite of the fact that the words used subsequently were incorporated later-on but still taking into consideration the judgment of Apex court in the case of Guljag Industries (supra) as also the Larger Bench decision of this court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (supra), holds that the declaration form being carried which is not filled in respect of material particulars, is non est. 10. The Apex court had an occasion to consider in the case of Guljag Industries (supra) not only sec.78(5) but also sec.22(8)(vii) of the RST A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
