9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (4) TMI 883 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxViolation of the provisions of section 78(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act 1994 - penalty imposed - Held that - As admittedly on January 4 2000 no declaration form ST-18AA was in existence in favour of the consignee. Admittedly as per respondent itself after making all efforts the declaration form ST-18AA was issued on January 7 2000; meaning thereby the goods was consigned without any declaration form ST-18AA. The said form was produced along with the reply which is issued on January 7 2000. In this view of the matter in my opinion both the authorities below have committed error while disturbing the finding of the petitioner-assessing authority because neither the declaration form was produced at the time of checking nor it was in possession of the consignee on the said date because admittedly the said form was issued on January 7 2000 subsequent to the date of inspection. Therefore if the declaration form ST-18AA was not in existence on the date of inspection then there was no question of sending goods to the consignee without declaration form. In this view of the matter therefore the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) as well as learned Tax Board committed error while quashing the order passed by the petitioner-authority in consonance with the provisions of the Act. Revision allowed.
Issues:
Validity of penalty imposed for not carrying required declaration form ST-18AA during transit. Analysis: The case involved a challenge to the validity of a penalty imposed on a dealer for not carrying the necessary declaration form ST-18AA during the transit of goods. The petitioner-authority intercepted the goods in transit, which were Power One make on-line UPS System 5 KVA, on the Ahmedabad-Udaipur route. The consignor of the goods consigned them to the consignee in Jaipur, but the goods were not accompanied by the required declaration form ST-18AA. The petitioner-authority issued a show-cause notice under section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, for violation of section 78(2) of the Act. The consignor responded to the notice, but the petitioner-authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 41,259 on the dealer for the violation. The dealer appealed the penalty order, and the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the penalty. Subsequently, the Tax Board, Ajmer dismissed the petitioner-Department's appeal against the order. The petitioner challenged the Tax Board's judgment, arguing that the Board failed to consider the matter objectively and overlooked the provisions of section 78(6) of the Act. The petitioner contended that the consignor was rightly penalized as per the law, and mens rea was not necessary for the offense under section 78(5) of the Act. On the other hand, the respondent-dealer argued that all relevant documents were produced during inspection except the declaration form ST-18AA, which was not available due to a strike. The form was issued later and submitted to the authority along with the reply. The respondent asserted that there was no intention to evade tax liability. The respondent relied on the judgments in similar cases to support their argument. The court examined the relevant legal provisions and previous judgments in similar cases. Referring to the apex court's judgments, the court emphasized the importance of producing the required declaration forms at the time of inspection to avoid tax evasion. The court noted that the declaration form ST-18AA was not available during the inspection but was issued later and submitted with the reply. Therefore, the court held that the penalty was rightly imposed by the petitioner-authority, and both the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tax Board erred in quashing the penalty order. Consequently, the court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the orders of the lower authorities and upholding the petitioner-authority's finding.
|
