1991 (11) TMI 251 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Summary

Issues:
Challenge of order of Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal regarding penalty under section 22(6) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 based on legal grounds.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer, regarding the levy of penalty under section 22(6) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. The main argument presented was that the goods found at the business premises were duly recorded in the books of account, and there was no excess stock to justify the penalty. The petitioner contended that bills for the purchase of saris were produced and supported by the books of accounts, but the assessing authority did not inquire into the genuineness of the bills. It was argued that the penalty was unjustified as there was no seizure of goods or proper inquiry conducted. An affidavit submitted to the Commercial Taxes Officer was also ignored by the Sales Tax Tribunal.

The Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, represented by Mr. Bapna, argued that one of the partners gave a statement during the stock check, and any subsequent explanation was an afterthought. The court considered the matter and emphasized that an admission by an assessee could be sufficient to take action unless proven false. In this case, the assessee submitted books of accounts and bills, but the assessing authority failed to investigate the genuineness of the bills. The court highlighted that penalizing without proper inquiry is unjust and that the burden is on the assessing authority to prove any offense. It was noted that the assessing authority should have seized the books of account if there were suspicions of false entries. The court criticized the lack of inquiry from the suppliers of the goods and emphasized the importance of proper investigation before levying penalties. The Tribunal's decision was deemed unjustified for rejecting documentary evidence without inquiry.

Consequently, the revision was allowed, the orders of the Sales Tax Tribunal and lower authorities were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the assessing authority for a fresh inquiry based on the court's observations. No costs were awarded in this case.