9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 619X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner-Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer and during checking, it was found that the declaration form ST-18A was time-barred as it was issued on September 19, 1994 and its validity was for a period of two years, therefore, after September 18, 1996, it became time-barred. Since the goods in transit were not accompanied with valid declaration form ST-18A, therefore, a notice under section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1994") for violation of the provisions of section 78(2) of the Act of 1994 was issued by the assessing authority to the respondent-dealer as to why penalty be not imposed. A reply to the said notice was filed by the respondent stating, inter alia, that because of igno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmed the findings recorded by the learned fist appellate authority through judgment dated November 19, 1997 (annexure 2). Hence, this revision petition. 3.. On May 13, 2004, this Court, after hearing both the parties, framed the following two substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the time-barred declaration form ST-18A carried along with the goods in transit itself attracts the provisions of penalty under section 78(5) of the Act of 1994 for violation of the provisions of section 78(2)(a) of the Act of 1994? (ii) Whether the offence under section 78(5) completes the moment the goods in movement are found accompanied with the time-barred declaration form ST-18 or the dealer will come out from the rigour of the provisions of section 78 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and gone through the entire materials available on record. 8.. This Court in the case of Mahaveer Chand Jain & Company [2000] 120 STC 212 held that on the expiry date, the form ST-18A does not become non est but very same form can be validated and given life for a further period by the concerned officer. In that case, this Court further held that the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tax Board were justified in drawing conclusion about want of mens rea to evade or avoid payment of tax on the part of the respondent-dealer and in not sustaining the penalty levied by the assessing officer. 9.. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Mahaveer Chand Jain & Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
