9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 741X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bearing No. HR 38L-3388 belonging to M/s. Maa Kela Goods Carrier, New Delhi. Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion, Ward-III, Circle-I, Jaipur checked the aforesaid truck on 23.08.2014 near Kaman Marg Railway Crossing, Deeg, Bharatpur. The truck was carrying grocery goods from Delhi to Gujarat. Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion, Ward-III, Circle-I, Jaipur detained goods along with the truck. According to the said Officer, TIN numbers of the parties were not found in existence and goods were not according to documents. Hence, he transferred the matter to Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion, Ward-I, Circle-I, Jaipur(for short 'Assessing Authority'). Assessing Authority issued notice to the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipt of the order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent in the garb of Indemnity as provided under Section 89 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003(for short 'RVAT Act') has impeached the fundamental right of the petitioner provided to him by the Constitution of India by illegally detaining truck along with goods beyond seven days as provided under Section 76(5)(a) of the RVAT Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon decisions rendered by this Court in the cases of Raj Auto Wheels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commercial Tax Officer, Ajmer & Others(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3073/2012 decided on 14.03.2012 along one another writ petition) and M/s. Apollo Surgicals Vs. the State of Rajasthan & Ors.(S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to State of Rajasthan, but he is from the State of Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, if eventually, the goods are released, the recovery of the tax and penalty would be difficult. It is argued that even a driver, as an agent of principal, would be covered by the definition of dealer and therefore on that basis, the petitioner cannot escape the liability. Learned counsel for the petitioner rejoined and submitted that sub-clause (iv) of Rule 77 of the RVAT Rules gives ample power to the respondent to satisfy about genuineness of the sureties offered by the petitioner and the petitioner is ready to submit two local sureties. Therefore, there is no reason why discriminatory attitude be adopted qua the petitioner only because he happens to be resident ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
