Commercial Taxes Officer vs Anil Parnami

Alok Sharma, J.—This is a Section 84 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter ''the 2003 Act'') sales tax (VAT) Revision Petition impugning the order dated 28-6-2013 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (hereinafter ''the Board'') dismissing the second appeal filed by the petitioner department (hereinafter ''the department'') against the order dated 4-7-2011 passed by the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) (hereinafter ''the Appellate Authority''), who had even while upholding levy of differential tax and interest thereon payable by the respondent assessee (hereinafter "the assessee'') had set aside the penalty of Rs. 2,08,170/- levied by the assessing officer on the assessee vide order dated 29-3-2010.

Heard the officers of the department and perused the impugned order dated 28-6-2013 passed by the Tax Board. Considered.

This court in the case of CTO, AE Zone-1 Jaipur Vs. M/s. Shyam Agency [SB Sales Tax (VAT) Revision Petition No. 42/2014) decided on 26-8-2014 has held that where there is a bonafide dispute between the assessee and the department as to the interpretation of the entries in the schedule and the classification of the goods in issue and it entails levy of additional tax and interest on the assessee in proceedings for escaped assessment, that conclusion by itself does not supply any of the pre conditions for the automatic levy of penalty u/s 61 of the 2003 Act. In coming to the aforesaid conclusions, this court had inter alia placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in case of Bharjatiya Steel Industries Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P., Bharjatiya Steel Industries Vs. Commissioner, Sales Tax, U.P., and Sree Krishna Electricals Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another,

In the present case it is an admitted fact that all sales transactions for the relevant assessment year were recorded in the account books of the assessee and there was admittedly no attempt at concealment/misinformation by the respondent assessee in the returns filed. The Appellate Authority and the Tax Board held that in the circumstances mere levy of additional tax and statutory interest on interpretation of the governing entries and consequent classification of the assessed goods against the say of the respondent assessee could not have entailed any automatic levy of penalty on the assessee. The Tax Board and the appellate authority have taken into consideration the aforesaid facts and relied upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case Shree Krishna Electricals (supra) to set aside the levy of penalty by the Assessing Officer.

The revision petition as filed by the department does not critique the judgment of the Tax Board or even remotely suggest as to how the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Shree Krishna Electricals (supra) relied upon by the Tax Board is not applicable in the facts of the case to the issue of levy of penalty on the assessee u/s 61 of the 1994 Act. The question of law as sought to be agitated in this revision petition has already been settled by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Shree Krishna Electricals (supra) and Bharjatiya Steel Industries (supra), and followed by this court in S.B. Sales Tax (VAT) Revision Petition No. 42/2014 titled CTO, AE Zone-I Jaipur Vs. M/s. Shyam Agency decided on 26-8-2014.

I find no force in the revision petition. Dismissed.