2011 (7) TMI 1038

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... with C.M. Sharma ORDER :- NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN J.-Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has preferred this revision petition challenging the impugned order dated July 6, 2007 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, whereby the petitioner's appeal has been dismissed. The assessing officer vide its order dated July 9, 2002, levied penalty under section 78(10)(a) of the Raj .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed counsel for the parties in the light of reasons assigned by both the appellate authorities for setting aside the penalty order passed by the assessing officer. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that all the required documents, as per provisions of section 78(2)(b) of the Act of 1994, were available and produced at the time of checking of vehicle/goods and required tax had .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d by the assessee, therefore intention to evade tax cannot be inferred. In these circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the concurrent finding recorded by both the appellate authorities, so as to interfere with the same in this revision petition. No question of law is involved in this revision petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.
Case laws, Decisions, Judgement .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X