TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 847X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 78(5) of the Act of 1994 for violation of section 78(2) of the Act of 1994 could not have been imposed against the owner of the goods - High Court vide its order dated December 17, 2007 dismissed the revision petition – Held that:- High Court has not recorded any reason for rejecting the revision petition of the appellant despite the fact that the matter was argued at length and various questions of law were raised before the High Court, order set aside and case remitted to the High Court with a request to hear the case de novo - Civil Appeal No. 3288 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 15-4-2010 - KAPADIA S.H. AND SWATANTER KUMAR JJ. A.P. Sahay and Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Advocates, for the appellant. ------------------------------- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r which, vide order dated November 3, 2003, allowed the appeal and held that the penalty against the owner of the goods could not be imposed as there was no intention to commit evasion of tax and thus set aside the order of the lower authority. The Department challenged this order before the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer Bench (for short, "the Board"), on different grounds. The appeal preferred by the Department came to be dismissed by the order of the Board dated April 4, 2005. The Board, while setting aside the order, expressed the view that prior to March 22, 2002 penalty could not be imposed on the owner of the goods under section 78(5) of the Act besides that there was no intention to commit any evasion of tax. Aggrieved by the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not recorded any reason for rejecting the revision petition of the appellant despite the fact that the matter was argued at length and various questions of law were raised before the High Court. We may also notice that in the grounds taken before us, various questions of fact and law have been raised and it is specifically urged that the impugned judgment of the High Court is contrary to the principles stated by this court in the case of Guljag Industries v. Commercial Tax Officer [2007] 9 VST 1; [2007] 7 SCC 269, where the court has held that the form should be complete in all respects and should be supported by requisite declaration/documents. It will be more appropriate to reproduce the order impugned in the present appeal at this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hout giving material particulars, would automatically attract levy of penalty for breach of section 78(2) of the Act. It was also stated in the judgment that this modus operandi of the owner of goods in that case did indicate mens rea. This principle was further explained and was finally settled in a subsequent judgment of this court in Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Bajaj Electricals Ltd. [2009] 1 SCC 308 [2008] 18 VST 436 (SC)., to which again one of us (Kapadia J.) was a party. In this case the court explained the expression "person in charge of the goods" with reference to the declaration form ST18A prescribed under rule 53 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1995 and substitution of this expression by "the owner of the goods or pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
