Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti-Evasion vs Iqbal Khan

Ajay Rastogi, J.—Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-Revenue u/s 84 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 ("the Act, 2003") being aggrieved by the order of the Tax Board dated August 29, 2011 which has affirmed the order of Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dated November 16, 2009. As it manifests from the record that vehicle bearing No. RJ-14/GB-0737 was checked on July 18, 2008 and during physical verification, the goods in the vehicle were not tallied with the documents submitted by the respondent and the Department was of the view that there being violation of section 76(2)/76(2)(d) of the Act, 2003 accordingly notice regarding violation of section 76(2), 76(2)(c) and 76(2)(b) of the Act, 2003 was served upon the owner of the vehicle holding that he has violated the provisions of law. It reveals from the record that the owner was not interested in facing enquiry and immediately after the notice came to be served application was filed by him u/s 76(6) for composition of offence and indisputably exercising power u/s 62 of the Act, 2003, the alleged offence committed by the owner of the vehicle was compounded and a sum of Rs. 1,80,565 was paid by the owner of the vehicle. At the same time, a separate notice was served upon driver of the vehicle regarding violation of section 76(2) and 76(9) of the Act. However, the matter travelled up to the Deputy Commissioner Appeals and it was observed that alleged offence has been compounded and accepted by the Department exercising power u/s 68 of the Act, 2003 and thereafter holding action in further violation of section 76(9) by the driver of the vehicle does not hold good and the impugned penalty could not be affected upon the dealer.

The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), after considering their submissions observed that these are not different offences being committed and if the vehicle which was transporting the goods and seized by the Department and if committed default or violation of the provisions of law, after the notice came to be served, the alleged offence has been compounded by the authority exercising power u/s 68 of the Act, the issue stands settled and put to rest. However, penalty inflicted for violation by driver of the vehicle u/s 76(9) of the Act was not justifiable and this what was expressed by the Tax Board as well while rejecting the appeal preferred by the Revenue.

This court also finds substance in what is being observed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and Tax Board that the alleged offence at one stage committed by the owner of the vehicle in question after notice was served has been compounded by the Department exercising its power u/s 68 of the Act and after the order of composition being passed by the authorities, separate notice u/s 76(9) of the Act to the driver of the vehicle in no manner hold good and inflicting penalty on the driver of the vehicle for the alleged inaction or violation committed as regards vehicle in question is not sustainable.

In the ordinary course the matters are required to be examined finally by the Tax Board. However, remedy is available to either party aggrieved u/s 84 of the Act but such revisions could be entertained by the High Court only if there is question of law involved.

After hearing counsel for the petitioner, this court does not find any question of law which emerges for consideration in the instant revision petition preferred at the behest of Revenue. Consequently, the revision petition is wholly devoid of merit and accordingly stands dismissed.