9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 1053X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned counsel for the petitioner. This revision petition is directed against the order dated January 31, 2008 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The assessing officer vide its order dated January 29, 2005 levied penalty under section 78(10A) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act of 1994" ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vying the penalty by the assessing officer. He, therefore, contended that the orders passed by both the appellate authorities may be set aside and order passed by the assessing officer may be restored. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of reasons assigned by both the appellate authorities for setting aside the penalty order passed by the assessin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /goods, then intention to evade tax cannot be inferred. Both the appellate authorities have recorded a concurrent finding that there was no mens rea on the part of the assessee, as all the required documents were available and tax had already been paid by the assessee, therefore intention to evade tax cannot be inferred. In these circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the concurrent findi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
