9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inendra Kumar Ranka, J. For the Petitioner : Tanvi Sahai For the Respondent : Alkesh Sharma ORDER 1. The instant petition (STR 383/2011) is directed against order dt 11.3.2011 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, which is a rectificatory order in continuation to the order dt 28.6.2007 passed by the Tax Board in Appeal No.3960/2005/Jaipur. 2. The brief facts noticed are that a vehicle was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nded by M/s D.S. Roadlines by paying the compounding fees. 3. The order of AO was assailed before the DC(A) who taking into note that the compounding having been accepted by the Revenue in the case of M/s D.S. Roadlines on the same material, accepted the appeal of the respondent and deleted the penalty. 4. The matter was further assailed before the Tax Board, however, the Tax Board in the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said order. Learned counsel contended that two offences were committed in the same incident and when separate penalties are notified in the Act, separate penalties can always be imposed on the same material on different persons and there is no bar in this regard. Compounding was done in the case of M/s D.S. Roadlines and the AO proved that there was connivance of the respondent with the transp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in my view in this case the Tax Board ignored the fact of compounding of the case by the transporter and which was considered by the DC(A), was raised before the Tax Board, but no finding has been given by the Tax Board in the earlier order, therefore, the order rectifying appears to be just and proper. 9. Taking into consideration the admitted fact that compounding has already been held in the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
