Assistant. Commercial Taxes Officer vs M/s. Indian Oil Corporation 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 5.2.2002 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (in short "The Board'') in Appeal No. 1246/1998, who had allowed the appeal of the respondent and deleted the penalty imposed u/s 78(5) of the Act, amounting to Rs. 1,95,760/- by setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)-II, Commercial Taxes Department, Jaipur, (in short ''The DC (A)), who had sustained the penalty imposed by the learned Assessing Officer (in short ''The AO''), u/s 78(5) of the said Act. The brief facts of the case as emerging on the face of record is that the respondent is a Oil Company and is a Public Sector Undertaking and transmitting lubricant oil from Bombay to different parts of the Country. In the instant case, on 9.2.1998 the goods (Oil) was being transmitted from Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Bombay Head Office to Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Jaipur Branch Office in a Vehicle Bearing No. DGL 3955 on branch transfer. The said vehicle was checked by the Authorities of the petitioner department and on inspection, it was noticed that though all other documents were available with the vehicle, the declaration form No. ST-18A was found to be blank. According to the petitioner, since the goods were in the category of ''Notified Goods'', therefore, carrying of blank declaration form was unjustified and it should have been filled in properly and completely. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent Company as to why penalty in the facts and circumstances of the case be not imposed.

It was represented by the respondent Company before the Assessing Officer of the petitioner department that on account of inadvertent mistake committed by the clerical staff, the declaration form could not be filled in properly and remained incomplete. However, it was submitted that all other documents were available with the vehicle and merely on the basis of incomplete declaration form No. ST-18A, penalty should not be imposed. Since, the goods were under transfer, therefore, no tax is leviable or chargeable, as such, question of penalty does not arise. However, the Assessing Officer, rejected the contentions of the respondent Company and vide order dated 17.2.1998 imposed the penalty u/s 78(5) of the Act, amounting to Rs. 1,95,760/- by observing that carrying of incomplete declaration form No. ST-18A was not justified as the form could have been re-used.

Dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the respondent Company filed an appeal before the learned DC (A) where the same facts were re-iterated by the respondent Company. After going through the material on record, the DC(A) also sustained the penalty observing that the declaration form No. ST-18A ought to have been filled in properly.

Again dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned DC(A), the respondent Company filed appeal before the tax Board, who after going through the material on record, allowed the appeal of the respondent and deleted the penalty imposed u/s 78(5) of the Act, amounting to Rs. 1,95,760/- by setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)-II, Commercial Taxes Department, Jaipur.

Hence, this revision petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Tanvi Sahai for Shri RB Mathur, submitted that the declaration form No. ST-18A was most important document and it was found blank at the time of inspection and there were many chances of its re-use. She further submitted that the Apex Court in the Case of Guljag Industries Vs. Commercial Taxes Officer, has observed that carrying of incomplete form is not proper and penalty could be levied in a case like this. She again submitted that the Assessing Officer as well as the DC (A) have rightly imposed the penalty and the Tax Board has only gone on the point of mens-rea and therefore, it should not have been deleted.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Company, Mr. Anant Kasliwal, submitted that the transmitting of the goods in question took place before the date 20th March, 2000 and before 20th March, 2000, there was no necessity of carrying of declaration form No. ST-18A in a case of stock transfer of goods, branch transfer/depot transfer or SOS transfer. The oil had been transmitted to Indian Oil Corporation Branch Jaipur from Indian Oil Corporation, head Office Bombay, therefore, there was no requirement of carrying such form and even if the form was found to be blank, the penalty in the facts and circumstances of the case, need not be levied as per the Notification Issued by the Government of Rajasthan, bearing No./F.4(1)FD/Tax/Div/2000-314 dated 20.3.2000. He further submitted that this Court in the Case of respondent itself i.e. 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. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that even the goods relating to stock transfer, branch transfer/depot transfer or SOS transfer is not disputed by the petitioner in as much as in the revision petition itself, in para 3 the petitioner has stated as under:-

Brief facts of the case are that on 9.2.1998 a vehicle No. DGL 3955 was carrying lubricant oil from IOC Ltd. Bombay to IOC Ltd. Jaipur on branch transfer.

Therefore, 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 facts and circumstances of the present case. Mr. T.C. Jain, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent also supported the argument made by Mr. A. Kasliwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent and further referred to the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of CTO Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. also the case of CTO, AE, Udaipur Vs. Viral Filaments Ltd., Jaipur (2010) 13 VAT Reporter 163 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.

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 judgments cited at bar and I am of the firm view that though none of the authorities have considered the aforesaid Notification issued by the Government of Rajasthan but the factum of stock transfer, branch transfer/depot transfer and SOS transfer has been admitted by the petitioner in this revision petition itself as aforesaid, therefore, no useful purpose will be served in remitting the matter back to the lower authorities, particularly, when the matter is of 1998 and over 15 years old and it would not be in the interest of justice to remit this issue when the issue is fully covered by the Notification issued by the Government of Rajasthan and which has been considered by this Court in the Case of assessee respondent itself, in the case of ACTO, FS-I, Jaipur Vs. M/s. Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. (Supra), in favour of the respondent. It is an admitted fact that the goods were transmitted to its branch at Jaipur and the transaction in question 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 looses 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 judgments referred to above. In view of the above discussions, keeping in view all the facts 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 rejected. The stay application stands rejected.