Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer vs Cadbury India Limited

Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J.—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-Department u/s 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (in short, "the Act") against the order dated June 6, 2006 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (in short, "the Board") in Appeal No. 484 of 2005 whereby the Tax Board dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner-Department by affirming the order dated August 3, 2004 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur, (in short, "the DC (A)"), whereby he allowed the claim of the respondent-assessee by allowing the appeal and setting aside the order passed by the assessing officer dated August 26, 1995 by deleting levy of penalty amounting to Rs. 1,36,963 u/s 22A(7) of the Act. The brief facts of the case are that on August 8, 1995 the assessing officer (in short, "the A.O.") intercepted a vehicle bearing No. DL-G/A-1826 and checked the same near octroi post, Ajmer Road. The driver of the vehicle was having Builty No. 4457267 dated August 4, 1995 from Amritnagar to Jaipur of Shri Varana Sahakari Dugdh Utpadak Sangh Ltd., Amritnagar, having stock transfer invoice No. 0374 dated August 4, 1995, Gate Pass No. 370 dated August 4, 1995 and declaration form No. ST 18-A and No. 142688 were found but the said declaration form was not completely filled in and it was found to be incomplete. So far as other documents were concerned, the A.O. was fully satisfied however, he was not satisfied on account of incomplete declaration form No. ST 18-A and issued notice to the respondent treating it to be violation of provisions of section 22A(3) of the Act, and to show cause why penalty should not be imposed against him. An explanation was furnished by the respondent but the A.O. was not satisfied by the explanation and imposed penalty as aforesaid.

Dissatisfied with the order passed by the A.O. the respondent company preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur, (in short, ("the DC (A)"), who after going through the order passed by the A.O. allowed the claim of the respondent-assessee by allowing the appeal and setting aside the order passed by the assessing officer dated August 26, 1995 by deleting levy of penalty amounting to Rs. 1,36,963 u/s 22A(7) of the Act.

Being dissatisfied with the order of DC (A), the petitioner-Department, carried the matter in appeal before the Tax Board, who vide order dated June 6, 2006 affirmed the order passed by the DC (A) and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner-Department.

Hence, this revision petition.

Ms. Tanvi Sahai, appearing on behalf of Mr. R.B. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner-Department submitted that since, the declaration form No. 18-A was not properly filled in and it was incomplete, the A.O. was justified in imposing the penalty. She submitted that Form No. ST-18-A was required to be filled in properly and completely which is mandatory and the A.O. was fully justified in imposing the penalty as aforesaid and both the appellate authorities were not justified in deleting the amount of penalty.

I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Department and perused the impugned orders passed by the lower appellate authorities and after perusal of the impugned order passed by the Tax Board as well as by the DC (A), I am fully satisfied that penalty could not be imposed on the other ground as the goods were under stock transfer and the transaction is prior to March 20, 2000, therefore, carrying of declaration form ST-18-A was not mandatory and the deletion of penalty is just and proper.

The goods were under stock transfer, and was intercepted and checked on August 8, 1995 is an admitted fact which fact has been mentioned in the order of the AO and DC (A) and this court in such circumstances and identical facts in the case of Assistant. Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. has already held that if the goods are under stock transfer and transmitted prior to March 20, 2000, then in view of notification dated March 20, 2000 carrying of declaration form was not required and the notification so issued by the Government is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that since the issue involved in the instant case has already been settled and decided in the case of Assistant. Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. no substantial questions of law arises. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid judgment, the instant revision petition has no substance. Accordingly, the sales tax revision petition is dismissed.