Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Flying Squad vs Tin Plate Company 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 November 13, 2002 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (in short, "the Board") in Appeal No. 111 of 1998, who had allowed the appeal of the respondent and deleted the penalty imposed u/s 78(5) of the Act, amounting to Rs. 98,629 by setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)-I, 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 goods of the respondent-company were being transferred as stock transfer on October 15, 1996 by Vehicle No. HR-47/3726. On checking it was found that in the vehicle tin plate was loaded and it was sent from Jamshedpur to Jaipur and the documents along with declaration form No. ST-18A was found to be blank and no entries therein was made, with the intention to evade tax, accordingly the petitioner-Department imposed the penalty after issuing show-cause notice to the respondent-company. Being dissatisfied with the order of the learned ACTO, the respondent-company preferred an appeal before the DC(A) who also sustained the penalty order. Again dissatisfied with the order of DC(A) the company further filed appeal before the Tax Board, who after going through the material on record, deleted the penalty by setting aside the orders passed by the learned ACTO and the DC(A).

Hence, this revision petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Tanvi Sahay, appearing on behalf of the petitioner fairly submits that the issue is prior to March 20, 2000 and relates to stock transfer and which is not disputed.

On perusal of the order passed by the ACTO it is abundantly clear that the vehicle was intercepted on October 15, 1996 and it is admitted by the learned ACTO in its order dated October 16, 1996 that the goods were under stock transfer. After analysing the facts and circumstances of the case, since the goods were under stock transfer, is of the year 1996 and the incident took place on October 15, 1996, and is also prior to the notification issued by the Government of Rajasthan, bearing No. R4(1)FD/Tax/Div/2000-314 dated March 20, 2000, the penalty cannot be imposed upon the goods which were under stock transfer where declaration form ST-18-A was lying blank or even not carried. On perusal of the facts the issue involved in the case appears to be squarely covered by the judgment passed by this court, in the case of Assistant. Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 46 of 2002, decided on May 3, 2013 and Assistant. Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. M/s. I.C.I. (India), Ltd., S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 50 of 2008, decided on May 3, 2013.

In the light of the aforesaid judgments and the issue involved in the case, since, the transmitting of the goods in question relates to the year 1996 and prior to the issuance of the aforesaid notification dated March 20, 2000 (supra), no penalty under stock transfer could be made in a case like this. In view of the above discussions, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case and also the controversy decided by this court in the aforesaid cases, I find that no irregularity, illegality or perversity has been committed by the Tax Board, while passing the impugned order. Therefore, no interference is called for by this court in this revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.