TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 1554X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the dealers’ turnover disallowing the exemption penalty cannot be imposed. The AO failed to justify levy of penalty, which has rightly been deleted by the appellate authorities and no question of law does arise out of the impugned order - petition dismissed. - S.B.Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 2 to 5 /2015 - - - Dated:- 20-1-2017 - Mr. Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J. For Petitioner : Ms. Meenal Ghiya For Respondent : Mr. Alkesh Sharma JUDGMENT The instant petitions are directed against order dt 25.8.2014 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, and are against the deletion of penalty u/s 61 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2009- 2010. 2. The brief facts noticed are tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay any tax and thus as prescribed u/s 61, penalty was rightly levied by the AO. Learned counsel contended that the officers were vigilant otherwise such cases are by large accepted without even calling the assessees, and if wrong claim or a claim which is not allowable is made, then for only these purposes penalty can be levied. Learned counsel also contended that the assessee knowing fully well that tax is not leviable, did not file any appeal before before the Tax Board and insofar as levy of tax is concerned, it has become final and so also prayed that the penalty is required to be sustained and the issue requires consideration. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that both the appellate authorities have foun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certain items which are not included in the turnover are disclosed in the dealer s own account books and the assessing authorities includes these items in the dealers turnover disallowing the exemption penalty cannot be imposed. The penalty levied stands set aside. 10. This court in the cases of CTO v. M/s. Durgeshwari Food Ltd. (2012) 32 TUD 3, and CTO v. M/s. Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. (2016) 90 VST 22 (Raj), has also held that in cases like this, penalty u/s 61 is not leviable. In my view the AO failed to justify levy of penalty, which has rightly been deleted by the appellate authorities and no question of law does arise out of the impugned order. 11. Accordingly, the petitions being devoid of merit, are dismissed. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
