9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 287X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deleted the penalty imposed under Section 78(5) of the Act, amounting to Rs.1,95,760/- by setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)-II, Commercial Taxes Department, Jaipur, (in short 'The DC (A)), who had sustained the penalty imposed by the learned Assessing Officer (in short 'The AO'), under Section 78(5) of the said Act. The brief facts of the case as emerging on the face of record is that the respondent is a Oil Company and is a Public Sector Undertaking and transmitting lubricant oil from Bombay to different parts of the Country. In the instant case, on 9.2.1998 the goods (Oil) was being transmitted from Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Bombay Head Office to Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Jaipur Branch Office in a V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Dis-satisfied with the aforesaid order, the respondent Company filed an appeal before the learned DC (A) where the same facts were re-iterated by the respondent Company. After going through the material on record, the DC(A) also sustained the penalty observing that the declaration form No. ST-18A ought to have been filled in properly. Again dis-satisfied with the order passed by the learned DC(A), the respondent Company filed appeal before the tax Board, who after going through the material on record, allowed the appeal of the respondent and deleted the penalty imposed under Section 78(5) of the Act, amounting to Rs.1,95,760/- by setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissiaoner (Appeals)-II, Commercial Taxes Department, Jaipur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 20.3.2000. He further submitted that this Court in the Case of respondent itself i.e.ACTO, FS-I, Jaipur Vs.M/s. Indian Oil Corp.Ltd.2006 Tax Up Date (15) 207 in identical circumstance, where the transaction was of 19.1.1998 prior to 20.3.2000 the aforesaid Notification was held applicable and no penalty was levied. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that even the goods relating to stock transfer,branch transfer/depot transfer or SOS transfer is not disputed by the petitioner in as much as in the revision petition itself, in para 3 the petitioner has stated as under:- "Brief facts of the case are that on 9.2.1998 a vehicle No. DGL 3955 was carrying lubricant oil from IOC Ltd. Bombay to IOC Ltd. Jai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and circumstances of the present case. I have considered the rival contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, the impugned judgment as well as the judgments cited at bar and I am of the firm view that though none of the authorities have considered the aforesaid Notification issued by the Government of Rajasthan but the factum of stock transfer, branch transfer/depot transfer and SOS transfer has been admitted by the petitioner in this revision petition itself as aforesaid, therefore, no useful purpose will be served in remitting the matter back to the lower authorities, particularly, when the matter is of 1998 and over 15 years old and it would not be in the interest of justice to remit this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
