TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1513X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eferred by the Revenue. Therefore, on both these counts, the requirement of law being not there in the first instance, and on the second count even if such requirement is presumed on factual matrix also, this court is satisfied that the penalty in question has rightly been set aside by the appellate forums and same do not require any interference by this court in revisional jurisdiction. Against revenue - S.B. Sales Tax Revision No. 214 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 29-3-2011 - VINEET KOTHARI DR., J. DR. VINEET KOTHARI J. This revision petition has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the learned Tax Board dated November 29, 2005, dismissing its appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dated October 26, 2004. Both the appellate authorities thus in favour of the respondent-assessee held that penalty of Rs. 56,790 could not be imposed on the respondentassessee under section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 on account of declaration in form No. ST-18A as per rule 53 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1995 being found to be incomplete with respect to two commodities, namely, electrical control panel and V-belts, and said declaration being not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a) were satisfied in the present case. (ii) In the alternative, he contended that declaration in form ST-18A with respect to two of the commodities, which was found to be incomplete was on account of the fault of the supplier/transporter, and since these particulars were/are required to be filled-up by such supplier/transporter only, therefore, any deficiency in such declaration form in filling-up that declaration, the present assessee, purchaser or consignee of the goods, cannot be saddled with the penalty. (iii) He also submitted that in pursuance of the show-cause notice issued by the assessing authority with respect to third commodity, namely, electrical motors, without prejudice to the contention of the assessee that such declaration form was not required, the assessee furnished such duly filled-up declaration in form ST-18A along-with the reply filed by the assessee on October 18, 2000 itself; and the said declaration or the other relevant documents were neither found to be false or forged upon the enquiry made by the assessing authority and consequently, no such penalty could be imposed on the assessee. He relied upon the following decisions in support of his submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : 1. Electro Enterprises v. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Maharashtra State, Bombay reported in [1995] 98 STC 116 (Bom). 2. Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Flying Squad, Jodhpur v. Derby Textile Pvt. Ltd. reported in [2010] 27 VST 363 (Raj). 3. CTO, AE, Udaipur v. Viral Filaments Ltd., Jaipur reported in [2010] 13 VAT Reporter 163 (Raj). The learned counsel for the respondent-assessee also urged that these three goods are not electrical goods falling in item No. 8 of the relevant notification dated March 30, 2000, and this being the question of law deserves to be determined by this court in the present revision petition, since the learned assessing authority despite noticing this contention of the assessee that there was no requirement of furnishing the said declaration in form ST-18A, failed to decide this question; and the said question of law deserves to be decided by this court. He also drew the attention of the court towards entries Nos. 96 and 111 of the rate of tax notification dated March 30, 2000 imposing eight per cent and 12 per cent rate of tax on the electrical goods, which entries are quoted hereinbelow, to contend that items imported by the assessee do n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used in generation or distribution of the electricity from the requirement of furnishing ST-18A, on the other hand the State Government in its delegated legislation or the subordinate legislation in the form of notification dated March 30, 2000 issued under rule 53 specifies all types of electrical goods including UPS and CVT(s) provides for requirement of producing declaration in form ST-18A. A useful reference can be made here to the above-quoted entries Nos. 96 and 111 of the rate notification of the contemporary period dated March 30, 2000, providing rates of tax on electrical goods, which includes electrical fans, desert and room coolers, bulbs and tube lights, wires and cables, electrical home and other appliances, electric earthenware, electrical porcelain ware, insulators and parts and accessories thereof. These commodities which are sought to be taxed by the State Government at eight per cent or 12 per cent, respectively, under entries Nos. 96 and 111 are more in the nature of the domestic electrical appliances rather than industrial electrical goods or appliances like the three items imported by the respondent-assessee-dealer in the present case. The purpose of ST-18A is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the aforesaid three types of goods imported by the respondent-assesseedealer. Therefore, firstly on the ground that no requirement of furnishing declaration in form ST-18A could be fastened upon the respondent-assessee in the present case, the penalty in question under section 78(5) of the Act deserves to be set aside and the appellate authority below has rightly done so, and therefore, their orders would not require any interference by this court. Secondly, on the factual matrix also, this court is satisfied that no penalty could be imposed on the respondent-assessee for the alleged breach of the rule 53 even if one were to conclude that such a requirement was there in law for the assessee to furnish these declarations. In D.P. Metal's case [2001] 124 STC 611 (SC); [2002] 1 SCC 279, the honourable apex court in para 30 delineated the need of providing opportunity to the assessee in such cases in compliance with the principles of natural justice, where declarations were found to be deficient or absent. It is true that in subsequent judgment in the case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Bajaj Electricals Ltd. reported in [2008] 18 VST 436 (SC), where the declarations i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
