9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (10) TMI 438X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 in the matter of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1954 Act") arising out of order dated February 10, 1995 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal (as the Rajasthan Tax Board was then known and hereinafter referred to as "the Board") in Appeal No. 5/91/ST/Jhunjhunu. 2.. As the non-petitioner refused to accept the notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il. Chemical tests conducted at a private laboratory revealed that the tanker contained mustard oil adulterated with til oil. A notice under section 22A(7) of the 1954 Act was issued to the non-petitioner in response to which the driver of the tanker appeared and sought an early determination of the matter. The petitioner by an order dated August 9, 1989 imposed a penalty of Rs. 57,973 on the non- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1954 Act was not warranted. Both the lower authorities have not questioned and therefore have accepted that the goods in question was not til oil but mustard oil adulterated with til oil or vice versa. It was treated as a case only of overvaluation. The Board held that the non-petitioner did nothing prohibited by any law and that only if he had undervalued the goods would there be evasion of tax. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e non-petitioner did not do anything prohibited by any law is therefore perverse. Surely, there is a law against adulteration and submission of false documents. 9.. As regards evasion of tax the Board and the D.C. (Appeals) appear to have taken a very simplistic view. Quite apart from the fact that the adulteration particularly of edible products is the most nefarious, anti-social activity imagin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The end-product could not be passed off as mustard oil for that would not make "economic" sense, i.e., there would no unfair advantage, i.e., no tax "saved". 10.. In these circumstances a lenient view cannot be taken of the fact that the goods were not covered by the documents and the imposition of penalty under section 22A(7) of the 1954 Act was clearly warranted. 11.. In view of the above th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
