Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion-II vs Agarwal Sales Corporation and Another

Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J.—The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-Department u/s 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (in short, "the Act of 1994") challenging the order dated January 30, 2008 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, in Appeal No. 3536 of 2005 by which the order passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)-II, Jaipur, (in short, DC(A)) dated March 14, 2005, was affirmed who had deleted the penalty imposed upon the respondent amounting to Rs. 51,586 imposed u/s 78(5) of the Act. The brief facts emerging on the face of record are that on August 18, 2001 the vehicle No. HR 51 GA 0089 was checked by the Assessing Officer of the Department at check-post, Shahjahanpur. The vehicle contained glass and at the time of checking builty of Rajasthan Bombay Road Lines bearing No. 494 dated August 17, 2001, Bill No. 98 dated August 17, 2001 of Gudex Glass Industries P. Ltd., Meerut and declaration form No. ST-18A dated June 27, 1997 was found, but the declaration form was found time-barred, which according to the Assessing Officer, was in violation of rules 23 and 53 of the Rules and also violation of section 78(2) of the Act. On this basis, a notice for imposition of penalty was issued u/s 78(5) of the Act. In response to the notice, one Manohar Lal Agarwal appeared and filed reply and admitted that by mistake of clerical staff the time-barred declaration form was enclosed with the documents. Taking into consideration the reply filed by the proprietor, penalty of Rs. 51,586 was imposed upon the respondent.

Aggrieved with the said order of penalty, the respondent preferred appeal before the learned DC(A), who was satisfied with the explanation of the assessee that mistakenly declaration form had been carried after expiry by human error and keeping in view the judgment of this court in the case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Mahaveer Chand Jain and Company, deleted the penalty imposed by the assessing officer u/s 78(5) of the Act. He also held that all other documents, bills and vouchers had been found to be in order and accepted the appeal of the respondent. Being dissatisfied with the order of learned DC(A), the Revenue Department preferred an appeal before the Tax Board, who after examining the material on record, rejected the appeal of the Department-petitioner.

Hence, this revision petition.

Ms. Tanvi Sahay, appearing on behalf of Mr. R.B. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the declaration form No. ST 18-A was a nullity and when declaration form which was already time-barred or carried after expiry then the said form cannot be said to be in existence at all and according to her there was clear-cut intention of tax evasion. She also submitted that the order of the Tax Board is bad, it refers to placing reliance on Full Bench order of Tax Board, in the case of Bajrang Timbers Mart... whereas, the same stand reversed by the honourable apex court in the case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Bajaj Electricals Ltd., therefore, the instant revision petition deserves to be allowed.

I have gone through the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner-Department and have perused the material on record as well as the orders passed by the two appellate authorities. After analysing the facts of the case and the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in my view, no case is made out for any interference by this court. In so far as the issue relating to carrying out the time-barred declaration form is concerned, it was simply a technical and human error on account of inadvertence and on such technicality, it cannot be said that the goods were being carried with the intention of tax evasion particularly when all other documents have been found to be proper, genuine and acceptable by the AO himself and no adverse comment was made by the AO on such supporting material. On expiry of the date, the declaration form does not become non est but the same form can be revalidated by the learned AO and can be used for further period. Therefore, when the declaration form is complete in all respect and other documents have been found to be in order, in my opinion, no case is made out for imposition of penalty or call for any interference by this court. The issue is also covered by the judgment of this court rendered in the case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Mahaveer Chand Jain and Company,

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, no case is made out to call for any interference by this court, as no error, illegality or impropriety is found in the order passed by the Tax Board. No question of law is involved.

Resultantly, the sales tax revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.