TMI Blog1998 (1) TMI 509X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transferred to this Tribunal under section 15 of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995. This is how these petitions have come up before us for disposal. Since they involve the consideration of common questions of fact and law they are being disposed of by a common judgment. Petition No. 100 of 1996: 2.. The respondent-firm is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of marble and granite stone, etc. On November 1, 1990 when the truck No. GJ 02/T 5721 loaded with goods had crossed the check-post at Abu road and was proceeding to Gujarat it was intercepted and checked by the petitioner, Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer (Flying Squad), Raniwara (ACTO). The driver of the truck was asked to produce for inspection the requisite docum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... why a penalty should not be imposed upon it. On November 1, 1990 the representative of the respondent-firm, Jagdish Agarwal, appeared before the ACTO and filed an application requesting that the goods be released. He expressed his desire to deposit the security amount as may be fixed by the ACTO. An amount of Rs. 1,350 was deposited under protest. The goods were released. On November 16, 1990 he took up the plea that it was a case of failure on the part of the driver of the truck not to make the declaration and to produce requisite documents with regard to the goods. The respondent-firm cannot be held liable for any lapse on the part of the driver. A penalty of Rs. 1,350 was levied. Petition No. 101 of 1996: 3.. Facts of this petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the desire to deposit the amount of security under protest. A sum of Rs. 8,790 was deposited with the department. The goods were released. He also promised to give a satisfactory reply within 15 days. On November 16, 1990 he appeared before the ACTO and took up the plea that it was a case of failure on the part of the driver to produce the requisite bill at the check-post, Abu Road. The ACTO considered the matter and imposed a penalty of Rs. 8,789 on the respondent-firm. The amount was adjusted against the sum of Rs. 8,790 which the respondent-firm had already deposited with the department under protest on November 1, 1990. The assessment orders dated November 16, 1990 were challenged by way of separate appeals before the Deputy Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e drivers of the vehicle did not show the documents or lodged relevant information at check-post, Abu Road, no case under section 22A(7) can be said to be made out inasmuch as the law permits the owner or the in-charge of the goods to produce the relevant documents within 15 days after receipt of the show cause notice. In the instant case, the bills were eventually examined by the ACTO. It has not been pointed out that any document was not reliable. It appears that by the attitude of the drivers the ACTO felt offended. 7.. The Tax Board gave a clean chit to the respondent-firms because it felt that it was not obligatory on the part of the drivers to produce documents at the check-post, Abu Road, with regard to the goods which were in exce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... checking is done the offence is complete on non-production of such documents. In these cases the drivers failed to produce the documents with regard to the excess goods which were being carried outside the State of Rajasthan to Gujarat. The incident took place on November 1, 1990. The seizure of the goods also did take place the same day. The representatives of the respondent-firms secured the release of the goods on that day. They take up the plea that the drivers were responsible for the lapse on their part for which no liability could be fastened on the respondent-firms for the payment of penalty amount. A reference in paragraph 4 quoted above is made to the rules 62-A and 63 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1955 to support the findi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 63 are of no help to the owner or the person in-charge of the goods in this behalf. They simply lay down the procedural requirements with regard to the type of documents which are required to be carried and produced, the seizure of goods and their release as also the period of notice for the completion of enquiry. The procedural tail cannot be allowed to wag the substantive head. Once the offence under section 22A of the Act is committed it cannot be washed off by the procedure laid down in rules 62-A and 63. It is also immaterial that the documents produced at a later stage were not adjudged as not reliable. 9.. To conclude, we accept the revision petitions, set aside the orders of the Tax Board dated March 31, 1993 and restore the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
