AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J.—In the instant sales tax revision petition, filed u/s 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (in short, "the Act"), the petitioner-Department has challenged the order dated March 2, 2005 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, in short ("the Board") in Appeal No. 1280 of 2003, whereby the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Kota, had deleted the penalty amounting to Rs. 12,000 imposed u/s 22A(7) of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the penalty was rightly levied by the assessing officer as no documents were found with the driver of the vehicle in which black oil (used) was found on inspection. It was the claim of the respondent-assessee that the oil in the vehicle was black oil (used) and it was procured from various "mechanics" (mistris) which was not usable and was being carried to Jaipur from Kota for resale, tax was to be paid by the purchaser and earlier it was tax paid, therefore, there was no liability under the Act. However, the assessing officer, was not satisfied with the contention of the assessee-respondent and imposed the penalty on the oil found, u/s 22A(7) as narrated hereinabove.
Against the order of the assessing officer, an appeal was preferred before the DC(A), who after going through the material on record and the order passed by the assessing officer, accepted the appeal of the respondent-assessee and deleted the penalty holding that the black oil was only meant for use by mistris in repair of vehicles and otherwise not usable and it was tax-paid earlier and tax liability, if any was to be borne by purchaser.
Aggrieved with the said order passed by the learned DC(A), appeal was preferred before the Tax Board, who after going through the order passed by the DC(A) and the submissions made by the parties, confirmed the order passed by the DC(A) who had deleted the penalty.
Hence, this revision petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. R.B. Mathur, submits that the driver of the vehicle was having no voucher, bills, built or challan of the goods (black oil) found, therefore, the assessing officer, was fully justified in imposing the penalty and there was no basis for reversing the findings given of the assessing officer, by the DC(A) and Tax Board and therefore, the same should be sustained.
I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the orders impugned passed by the lower authorities. It is a finding of fact that the black oil was purchased/procured by the driver of the vehicle from various mechanic/mistris for specific purpose of use by other mechanics for repair of vehicles and it was not otherwise usable, earlier it was tax paid and there was no intention of tax evasion in so far as said oil found in the vehicle is concerned. It is a finding of fact that oil which was found in the vehicle was tax paid earlier as no oil can be sold without payment of tax and further, if the purchaser would resale, again tax would be charged by it. There is concurrent finding of fact of the two lower-authorities, that the goods were tax paid and no evasion of tax and therefore, the penalty on such tax paid goods cannot be levied.
In view of above, I do not find any illegality, error or perversity in the orders impugned passed by the lower authorities. It is a finding of fact and no question of law is involved.
Before parting with this order, I would like to observe that it is inappropriate that sales tax revision petition is filed in a case like this, involving matter of a meager amount of just Rs. 12,000 by way of this revision petition when both the lower authorities the DC(A) and Tax Board, decided against the petitioner-Department. Preferring revision petitions, in such small cases, should undergo a more careful scrutiny in the Department to avoid infructuous expenditure of public exchequer and to avoid harassment to the tax-payers, needlessly to ask them on their costs again in case, notices are required to be sent to the respondent-assessees. The Department should closely examine before approaching this court on smallness of tax/penalty as the costs of expenditure, for the Department in some cases may be higher.
The National Litigation Policy 2009 has been framed by the Central Government with a view to ensure conduct of responsible litigation by the Central Government which, inter alia, urges every State Government to evolve similar policies. The broad points that emerge in the said policy are (1) The National Litigation Policy is based on the recognition that Government and its various agencies are the predominant litigants in courts and Tribunals in the country, its aim is to transform Government into an efficient and responsible litigant. This policy is also based on the recognition that it is the responsibility of the Government to protect the rights of citizens, to respect fundamental rights and those in charge of the conduct of Government litigation should never forget this basic principle; (2) Government must cease to be a compulsive litigant. The philosophy that matters should be left to the courts for ultimate decision has to be discarded. The easy approach, "let the court decide," must be eschewed and condemned; (3) Advocates on record must play a meaningful role in Government litigations, they cannot continue to be merely responsible for filing appearances in courts; and (4) Given that tribunalization is meant to remove the loads from courts, challenge to orders of Tribunals should be an exception and not a matter of routine. Where the Tribunal has come to the rescue of the assessees, appeals are filed mechanically and compulsively with the approach to "save their skin" is erroneous. It has been desired by the Central Government in the National Litigation Policy that no further revisions/appeals will be filed (a) if the stakes are not high and are less than that amount to be fixed by the Revenue authorities; (b) if the matter is covered by a series of judgments of the Tribunal or of the High Courts and which have not been challenged in the Supreme Court; (c) where the assessee has acted in accordance with long standing industry practice and (d) merely because of change of opinion on the part of jurisdictional officers.
It is well known that under the income tax laws only matters where the tax effect is exceeding Rs. 10,00,000 (Rs. ten lac only) in such cases, appeal is preferred by the income tax Department before the High Court (Notification No. 3 of 2011 dated February 9, 2011 (F. No. 279/Misc.-142/2007-ITJ) issued by the Central Board by Direct Taxes. Similarly Board of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax has issued similar instructions deciding therein the monetary limits for these Departments to approach Tribunal, High Court and Supreme Court. Thus, the National Litigation Policy as formulated by the Government of India, seeks to reduce the tendency to approach the court for all issues, reducing the costs of litigation of the assessee and the Government which sometime is more than tax involved and to focus on core issues.
It is, therefore, necessary for the Department not to go for appeals/revisions where tax/penalty is not substantial. On the aforesaid backdrop instructions are being issued to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Rajasthan, to consider the necessity of issuing circular to formulate the monetary limits for filing of appeals before the Rajasthan Tax Board High Court and Supreme Court by the Department considering the current economic scenario. The Commissioner, may have received the National Litigation Policy which otherwise, is widely known. Concentrated efforts are needed to be made to observe the National Litigation Policy, 2009 wherein the Central Government has urged every State Government to evolve similar policies. Formulation of such monetary policy will, definitely go a long way not only to reduce the pendency at various levels/forums and at the same time help the officers of the Department to concentrate and focus on core issues.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan, "Kar Bhawan" Jaipur and Principal Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur forthwith for necessary action, it is hoped and expected that a policy on the lines of National Litigation Policy, 2009 will be issued within a period of four months. Accordingly, the sales tax revision petition as well as the stay application are dismissed.