TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1289X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be sent to Gujarat and therefore, it is merely on assumption and presumption and only because of the bill and vouchers being in the same handwriting, it was alleged that the bills are bogus. Merely because bills and vouchers are in the same handwriting and if the goods are sent by the same firm in different names to be intended for different consignees, then certainly the handwriting on the bills and vouchers would be the same, therefore, merely because the handwriting was same, in my view, it cannot be a basis for imposition of levy of tax, penalty and interest. It is also clear that not a single document was available so as to come to a conclusion that the goods were meant for being uploaded/sold within the State of Rajasthan, rat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eputy Commissioner (Appeals) (for short, the DC(A) ) by which the DC(A) has deleted the penalty levied by the petitioner-assessing officer on the respondentassessee. Since the controversy involved is identical, both these revision petitions are being decided by this common order. This petition was admitted vide order dated June 29, 2011 on the following questions of law: (i) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Rajasthan Tax Board was justified in law in deleting the penalty under section 22A(7) of the Act of 1954 when there was violation of section 22A(3) of the Act? (ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Rajasthan Tax Board has not acted illegally and perversely in confirming the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ), two appeals were preferred before the Tax Board, who also, vide order dated June 29, 2010, approved the order of the DC(A) and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner-assessing officer. Hence these revision petitions by the petitioner-assessing officer. Shri R.B. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner-assessing officer, submitted that there was violation of the provisions of section 22A(7) and the proviso to section 22A(7) of the Act of 1954. The bills and vouchers were not in order and the respondent-assessee admitted that he is not in a position to produce the consignee. He further submitted that the goods were meant for the State of Rajasthan and to be delivered in the State of Rajasthan but only to avoid the penalty or levy of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heck-post or barrier or any other officer as may be empowered by the Government in that behalf. The owner or person in-charge of a vehicle, boat or animal entering the State limits or leaving the States limits shall also give a declaration containing such particulars as may be prescribed of the goods carried in or on the vehicle, boat or animal, as the case may be, before the officer in-charge of the check-post or barrier or the officer empowered as aforesaid and give one copy of the declaration to such officer, and keep one copy with him. (4) to (6) . . . (7) (a) The officer in-charge of the check-post or barrier or any other officer not below the rank of an Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, empowered in this behalf may, after givi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tained for a period not exceeding 30 days after the date of the payment of the penalty or furnishing of the security. (b) Such officer may release any of the goods seized under subsection (5) or sub-section (6) on payment of the penalty under clause (a) or on furnishing such security in such form as may be prescribed for the payment thereof, as he may consider necessary. On perusal of the above, it is apparent that the owner or person incharge of a vehicle has to have proper documentation and which on demand will necessarily have to be produced by the owner or person incharge of the vehicle. In so far as the present facts are concerned, it bears out from the record that the respondent had all the documents and the documents, which we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r being uploaded/sold within the State of Rajasthan, rather all the documents proved otherwise. On perusal of the records, it is also clear that the respondent-assessee submitted a reply on April 12, 1995 and wanted time for verification of consignor and consignee but without providing adequate time, the penalty was levied on April 12, 1995. Even otherwise, without providing adequate opportunity of hearing, the tax, penalty and interest was imposed and therefore, it is not justified and the Tax Board has correctly come to the conclusion that the entire penalty, tax and interest has been levied merely on conjectures and surmises without proving further by the petitioner-assessing officer. In my view, the Tax Board has come to a correct concl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
