Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 1286 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxPenalty under section 77(8) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act 1994 - Unaccounted goods - Held that - penalty has wrongly been deleted by the Tax Board for the reason that (1) the books of accounts did not contain any entry of the said silver bar weighing 32.895 kilogram found in the custody and possession of the respondent (2) it is not supported by any bill or evidence relating to the purchase of the said silver bar found in the custody and possession of the respondent at the time of survey (3) despite adequate opportunity having being granted the respondent pleaded for imposing of penalty payment of the penalty and release of the goods on the spot (4) letter dated December 20 2000 was also filed admitting that the said goods were purchased without bill and that no entry was made in the books of accounts. Tax Board was unjustified in merely admitting the claim of the respondent which was put up first time before the DC (A) and in my view it is an afterthought and ought not to have been plainly admitted and relied upon by the Tax Board. Tax Board is a final fact-finding authority and such a claim ought not to have been admitted merely on the basis of a simple claim. - it is quite apparent that on or before the date of survey with regard to the silver bar weighing 32.895 kilogram the respondent did not have any proper bill or voucher or any other evidence. Rather it was claimed and admitted that they do not have any document relating to silver bar and even there was no entry in the books of accounts rather the respondent admitted imposition of penalty and even payment of the penalty on the spot. In my view on these finding no other factor was required to be considered by the Tax Board. - penalty was rightly imposed by the assessing officer rightly sustained by the DC (A) and wrongly deleted by the Tax Board and in my view the order of the Tax Board deserves to be reversed. Accordingly the order of the Tax Board is reversed and that of the assessing officer is sustained. - Decided in favour of Revenue.
Issues:
Penalty under section 77(8) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 was deleted by the Rajasthan Tax Board. The main questions of law were whether the deletion of penalty was justified when the goods were unaccounted for and there was a clear admission by the assessee, and whether the Tax Board acted wrongly in deleting the penalty solely based on the version provided by the assessee. Analysis: 1. Facts and Circumstances of the Case: A survey conducted at the business premises of the respondent revealed an unaccounted silver bar. The respondent admitted to the absence of records or bills for the silver bar, leading to the imposition of a penalty by the assessing officer. 2. Imposition of Penalty: Despite the clear admission by the respondent, an appeal was filed before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the penalty. The respondent then approached the Rajasthan Tax Board, which deleted the penalty based on the submission that necessary bills and books of accounts were produced. 3. Contentions of the Petitioner-Department: The petitioner argued that the Tax Board erred in deleting the penalty as the respondent had admitted to the unaccounted goods without proper documentation. The petitioner contended that the respondent's actions, including the delayed production of bills, were afterthoughts and should not have been accepted by the Tax Board. 4. Judicial Analysis: The High Court reviewed the case and found that the deletion of the penalty by the Tax Board was unjustified. The Court noted the lack of proper documentation, the admission of the respondent, and the absence of evidence to support the deletion of the penalty. 5. Conclusion: The High Court reversed the order of the Tax Board, reinstating the penalty imposed by the assessing officer. The Court emphasized that the respondent's delayed actions and lack of evidence did not warrant the deletion of the penalty. The decision was in favor of the petitioner-Department, and no costs were awarded in the matter.
|