Asstt. Commercial Taxes Officer vs Auto and Bearing Jodhpur

Rajesh Balia, J.—A short point has been urged by the learned Counsel for the Revenue in this revision which is at the instance of the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Check Post Mavla, Abu Road.

Vehicle No. RJ 19/G-2253 was checked by the petitioner at the Check-post Mavla. The vehicle was carrying two cartons of bearing. The person in charge of the vehicle could not produce any documents. Neither the bill nor the builty were accompaning the goods. A notice was issued by the Assessing Authority u/s 22-A(7) of the Act stating that the goods have been found without documents, and in the absence of bill, on enquiry from the market by the inspector the goods were valued at Rs. 73,480 for the purpose of effecting seizure. In reply, the assessee submitted that transporter was furnished with bill and builty but the transporter has not delivered the bill and builty to the driver of the vehicle, hence he could not produce same at the time of checking. However, bill from the selling dealer and the builty from the transporter had been produced along with the reply and it was urged that the value of the goods is not Rs. 73,480 but it has been purchased at Rs. 48,007/-. The Assessing Authority rejected the explanation and levied the penalty u/s 22A(7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act at 30% of the value of the goods which he took at 73,480 as per the report of the Inspector. The order was confirmed by the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals). However, the Tribunal while affirming the order of penalty reduced the penalty by connecting it with the value of the goods as disclosed by the assessee in his bills on finding that no material has been produced showing that the value of goods was not as disclosed in the bills as produced by the assessee.

Learned counsel for the Revenue has urged that the assessing officer was not bound to accept the value shown in the bill for the purpose of proceeding u/s 22-A and he could independently fix the value of the goods seized which was being carried in violation of the provisions ad impose penalty in relation thereto, when he entertains doubt about correctness of value in the bills.

It is true that the assessing officer is not bound to adopt the value shown in the bill and come to the independent value of the goods in question by holding an enquiry into it where he has doubt about the correctness of bill. At the same time, it is also necessary that that can only be done by holding an enquiry and considering the entire material that has been placed before him. As noticed above, the valuation at the initial stage was done by calling a report from the Inspector for the purpose of valuing the goods for seizing the same. It was not an enquiry done for the purpose of substituting or for finding the value of the goods shown in the bill to be erroneous. That has been done because the relevant material disclosing the consideration at which the goods in question had been transacted by the parties was not available with the assessing officer. Once the assessee has produced the bill from the selling dealer, merely on the basis of ex parte enquiry done by the Inspector for the purpose of valuing the goods to be seized: not in relation to finding whether the bill value disclosed in the bills is erroneous, the correctness of the bill could not have been rejected. The Tribunal by taking the aforesaid view has accepted the bill value of the goods as shown in the bills and has not accepted the value of the goods as determined by the assessing officer on the basis of an ex parte information gathered by the Inspector for a limited purpose. I am of the opinion, no question of law arises for determination in this case. It is a question of fact depending upon the entirety of the facts which in my opinion the Tribunal has not decided erroneously.

The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.