TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 588X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction was not taxable under the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003, which came into force with effect from April 1, 2006, as metal mesh at four per cent under Schedule IV of the Act but at 12.5 per cent under the residuary entry in Schedule V of the said Act but set aside the penalty imposed on the assessee under section 61 of the Act. The controversy involved in the present revision petition has already been decided by this court, at principal seat, while dismissing revision petitions filed by the assessee as well as Revenue being S.B.C.S.T.R. No. 136 of 2010 (Agarwal Aluminium v. Asst. Commissioner A/E, Circle-III, Jaipur) dismissed the revision petitions of the assessee and Revenue both vide judgment dated October 22, 2011 and held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... possible to include 'aluminium grills' or 'aluminium grill sections' manufactured by the assessee within the ambit and scope of words 'metal mesh' in entry 92.8 of Schedule IV along with words wire mesh, wire netting and barbed wire. The same has to be therefore held to be taxable in the residuary entry at 12.5 per cent in Schedule V of the Act. 27. Even if two views were possible, the benefit could be given to the assessee but, it does not seem to this court that two views for interpretation of those goods and apply entry No. 92.8 are possible. The commodity in question was described by the assessee right from the beginning as 'aluminium grills' or 'aluminium grill sections' and never the word ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imposition of penalty under section 61 of the Act. Mere raising of contention by the assessee that it was liable to pay lesser rate of tax of four per cent treating the commodity as 'metal mesh', which contention has not found favour at all with the Departmental authorities or even this court, it does not necessarily mean that the assessee was guilty of concealing any material information or furnishing inaccurate particulars in its returns. Therefore, the deletion of penalty by the appellate authorities under section 61 of the Act deserves to be upheld and for this reason the revision petitions filed by the Revenue are also liable to be dismissed. 30. Accordingly, the revision petitions filed by the assessee as well as Revenue ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
