Assistant. Commercial Taxes Officer vs M/s. I.C.I. (India), Ltd.

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 13.04.2007 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (in short "the Board'') in Appeal No. 2654/2005, who had dismissed the appeal of the petitioner department. The brief fact of the case as emerging on the face of record is that the respondent is carrying on business of ''Paints''. On 20.09.1996 Vehicle No. GJ IX 6189 was checked by the Officer of the Flying Squad near Nasirabad Octroi Check Post, it was found that the goods were transmitted to Jaipur branch office from Ahmedabad Head Office. On interrogation, the driver of the vehicle produced all relevant document which were GR No. 008951, Bill No. 430113 and 119 but the declaration Form No. ST-18A was found blank. However, there was no satisfactory explanation given by the respondent, the vehicle was seized. A notice was given to the respondent and only after imposition of penalty @ 30% to the extent of Rs. 90,000/- after assessing the value of the goods to be about Rs. 3,00,000/- the vehicle was released. While imposing the penalty, it was mentioned that the declaration Form No. ST-18A was found blank and it was mandatory to be filled in and that blank declaration form, could have been re-used.

Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order passed by the ACTO (FS-I), Ajmer, an appeal was preferred by the respondent before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)-I, Jaipur [In short DC(A)]. It was stated before the DC(A) that there is no dispute with regard to goods being under stock transfer, branch transfer from Ahmedabad to Jaipur. It is an admitted position that as per the Notification issued by the Government of Rajasthan, bearing No./F.4(1)FD/Tax/Div/2000-314 dated 20.3.2000 there was no requirement to carry the declaration form prior to the said date. It was also submitted that there was no intention of tax evasion as there was no tax on stock transfer/branch transfer. The DC(A) accepted the appeal of the appellant and deleted the penalty imposed u/s 78(5) of the Act, by the ACTO (FS-I), Ajmer.

Being dissatisfied with the order dated 2.5.2005 passed by the DC(A), the petitioner department preferred an appeal before the Tax Board, Ajmer, who vide order dated 13.4.2007 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner department and sustained the order of DC (A) who had deleted the penalty as stated above.

Hence, this revision petition.

Ms. Tanvi Sahai for Mr. RB Matur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-department submitted that the requirement of carrying declaration form No. ST-18A was mandatory and the ACTO was justified in imposing the penalty as the form was found to be blank. She further submitted that in a case like this, since the petitioner department was apprehending that the form could be re-used therefore, the form ought to have been filled in properly in all respect. She also submitted that in the Case of Guljag Industries Vs. Commercial Taxes Officer, has observed that carrying of incomplete form is not proper penalty could be levied in a case like this. therefore, she submitted that the facts of the aforesaid case are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and both the lower authorities have committed illegality in deleting the penalty.

On the other hand, Mr. Manish Sharma, appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that as per Notification issued by the Government of Rajasthan, bearing No./F.4(1) FD/Tax/Div/2000-314 dated 20.3.2000 there was no requirement to carry declaration form No. ST-18 A with the goods. In the present case, the goods were transmitted prior to the date 20th March, 2000 and there was no necessity of carrying of such declaration form No. ST-18A in a case of stock transfer of goods, branch transfer/depot transfer or SOS transfer and even if the form was found to be blank, the penalty in the facts and circumstances of the case, need not be levied. He submitted that there is no dispute about goods being under stock/Branch transfer. He further submitted that this Court in the Case of ACTO, FS-I, Jaipur Vs. M/s. Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. 2006 Tax Up Date (15) 207 in identical circumstance, where the transaction was of 19.1.1998 prior to 20.3.2000 the aforesaid Notification was held applicable and no penalty was levied and even carrying declaration form looses its significance. It is submitted that the aforesaid Judgment ACTO, FS-I, Jaipur Vs. M/s. Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. 2006 Tax Up Date (15) 207 (Supra), is squarely applicable in the fact and circumstances of the present case. He also relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of CTO Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. also the case of Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. J.L.C. Electroment (Pvt.) Ltd., and also the Case of A.C.T.O., Flying Squad Vs. Derby Textile Pvt. Ltd., and submitted that in a case like this, no penalty could be levied and accordingly, he submitted that in the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case and as per Notification and the judgment cited by him, they being squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, therefore, the revision petition should be dismissed. He further submitted that it is a finding of fact.

In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this issue has not at all been considered by any of the Authorities below, about the said declaration form and Notification dated 20.3.2000 therefore, the matter is required to be remitted back to the lower authorities for fresh decision as none of the authorities have looked into about this issue from this angle. She also objected to the factum of admission about stock transfer/branch transfer/depot transfer or SOS transfer and submitted that the judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the Case of GulJag Industries Vs. Commercial Taxes Officer (Supra), is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

I have considered the rival contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, the impugned judgment as well as the judgment cited at bar. The goods were transmitted on 20.9.1996 and the transaction is prior to 20th March, 2000, therefore, Notification is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case when there was no requirement of carrying such declaration form No. ST-18A in the case of stock transfer, branch transfer/depot transfer and SOS transfer then whether it was blank or filled losses significance. Though, the Tax Board, has deleted the penalty on other consideration but the present controversy has already been set at rest by this Court in the judgment referred to above. The DC(A) has also dealt with this Notification at length and deleted the penalty. Since, the matter pertains to the year 1996, and over 17 years old no useful purpose will serve if the matter is remitted back to the lower authorities, particularly, when this factum is established that the goods in question were being transmitted from Ahmadabad Office to Jaipur Branch Office.

In view of the above discussions, keeping in view all the fact and circumstances of the case and also keeping in view the controversy decided by this Court, in number of cases referred to above, no question of law arises and no illegality, irregularity or perversity is made out in the judgment of the Tax Board, as such, no interference is called for by this Court in this revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. The stay application stands dismissed. However, if the petitioner department on perusal of records comes to a conclusion that the goods were not under stock/Branch transfer then the petitioner department would be at liberty to move an application before this Court.