9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 454X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (hereinafter "the Act of 2003"), a challenge has been laid to the order dated July 21, 2010 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, upholding the order dated March 24, 2009, passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Tax, Udaipur, whereby the Deputy Commissioner had set aside the order of the assessing authority passed on August 20, 2008 levy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... losing therewith form VAT-49. However, the reply in the defence of the respondentassessee was negatived and the declaration in form VAT-49 over-looked and penalty under section 76(6) of the Act of 2003 imposed amounting to Rs. 6,00,000. The assessing authority has negatived the defence of the respondent-assessee and overlooked the submission of form VAT-49 on the ground that the submission of form ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [2001] 124 STC 611 (SC); [2002] 1 SCC 279, the submission of requisite declaration/form VAT-49 along with the reply to the show-cause notice, the declaration/form was sufficient compliance with the provisions of law as detailed in section 76(2)(b) of the Act of 2003 and that in such a fact-situation, the intent to evade the tax could not be established consequent to which no penalty could be levie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. Further even otherwise declaration in form VAT-49 was submitted to the assessing authority along with reply to the show-cause notice. In this view of the matter, it is not conceivable that there was any intent to evade tax which could be made out against the respondent-assessee and consequently, the levy of penalty against the respondent-assessee was absolutely illegal, arbitrary and ultra vir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
