Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (11) TMI 1555

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1, 1999. The facts of the case are that vehicle No. HR-2 6-GA-1012 was checked at Aakeda Road, Bhiwadi (Rajasthan) on May 7, 1999 while it was trans porting gram (channa) a notified goods to Delhi. The documents submitted by the driver of the aforesaid vehicle were incomplete with reference to the provisions of section 78(2) (a) which, inter alia, requires that the driver or the person in-charge of a vehicle or carrier or of goods in movement shall carry with him the goods vehicle record including challans and bilties , bills of sale or dispatch memos and prescribed declaration forms. In pursuance of clause (ii) of rule 54(1) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1995 (hereinafter the Rules of 1995 ), the State of Rajasthan issued a Circ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) in absolving the assessee, however proceeded in effect to uphold the order in setting aside the penalty on the sole ground that the goods in transit were tax-paid and therefore, not required to be accompanied by a declaration under Form ST -18-C. Mr. R. B. Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Depart ment, has submitted that the reasoning of the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, in setting aside the penalty under section 78(5) of the Act of 1994 for reason of the goods in transit being tax paid and hence not required in law to be accompanied by form ST-18-C is contrary to the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Guljag Industries v. Commercial Taxes Officer [2007] 9 VST 1 (SC); .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of export of goods has been emphasized by the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Guljag Industries v. Commercial Taxes Officer [2007] 9 VST 1 (SC); [2007] 293 ITR 584 (SC); [2007] 7 SCC 269. He submits that in view of the aforesaid enunciation of law by the honourable Supreme Court, the judgment dated April 4, 2007 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer upholding the order dated November 17, 2004 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) contrary thereto is liable to be quashed and set aside and the order of penalty passed by the assessing authority on May 11, 1999 restored. Mr. Sarvesh Jain, counsel appearing for the non-petitioner (respondent assessee) has however, supported the judgment of the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer. It h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2)(a) of the Act of 1994, inter alia, requires the notified goods in movement to be accompanied by requisite declarations. Rule 54(1) (ii) of the Rules of 1994 makes it clear that the goods duly notified in the course of inter-State trade or commerce shall be accompanied by the requisite declaration. In pursuance of rule 54(1)(ii), notification dated March 26, 1999 has been issued by the State which, inter alia, specifically includes gram (channa) the goods which were in transit, is the case before this court. The goods in transit by the assessee from Rajasthan to Delhi on May 7, 1999 was therefore, required to be accompanied by form ST-18C. This aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) as also by the Ra .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... matter to the assessing authority to conduct an inquiry afresh. The argument based on the denial of the principles of natural justice for upsetting the order of penalty under section 78(5) of the Act of 1994 passed by the assessing officer on May 11, 1999 and upholding the order dated November 17, 2004 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and the order dated April 4, 2007 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, is also liable to be negated. For the aforesaid reasons, in my considered opinion, this sales tax revision deserves to be allowed. The judgment dated April 4, 2007 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, as also the order dated November 17, 2004 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) are set aside and the order da .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates