9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 866X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case are that at the time of checking of vehicle in dispute, declaration form ST-18A was not available with the person in-charge of the vehicle along with other relevant documents. The assessing officer was of the view that the declaration form ST-18A should have been accompanied with the goods, therefore, penalty under section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (for short, "th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent preferred an appeal, which was allowed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated September 25, 2002. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Tax Board but the same was dismissed vide order dated December 31, 2003, which is under challenge in this revision petition preferred on behalf of the petitioner. Submission of the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that declaration form ST 18A was produced by the respondent before the assessing officer along with reply to show-cause notice, therefore, there was sufficient compliance of provisions of section 78(2) and 78(5) of the Act. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Rajasthan Tax Board were right in setting aside the penalty order passed by the assessing officer. He contended th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a declaration form. This fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner also. Since required declaration form had already been produced before the assessing officer, therefore, there was sufficient compliance of provisions of section 78(2) and 78(5) of the Act and also the judgment of the honourable apex court in State of Rajasthan v. D.P. Metals [2001] 124 STC 611 (SC); [2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
