Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (8) TMI 1240 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

2015 (8) TMI 1240 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT - [2015] 86 VST 328 (Raj) - Penalty u/s 78(5) - Evasion of duty - Mens rea - violation of sub-section (2) of Section 78 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 - Held that:- It has been noticed by the Tax Board that there were several discrepancies noticed in the documents produced by the vehicle In-charge at the time of interception. It has been observed by the Tax Board that the documents namely; bill was prepared later on after the vehicle was intercepted .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ginal bill book was blank and entries could be made as per choice and convenience and further these can be categorized in the category of false and forged and it is a clear cut case of evasion of Tax.

Therefore, once there is a clear cut admission by the assessee himself that the bill was prepared later on and in my view as well, there is no case made out by the assessee and it was a clear cut case of evasion of tax and the penalty has been rightly imposed by the AO and sustained by t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ble the Chief Justice to resolve and decide the following questions framed after noticing a conflict of opinions in the Division Bench judgments of this Court in M/s. Parasnath Granite India Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Another (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4250/1998), 2005(1) RLR 291, decided on 02.06.2004, and in M/s Maharana Talkies Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others(D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.858/1994), reported in (2004) 19 Sales Tax Today 239, decided on 29.11.2004, as well as M/s. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hether in view of the amendment to Rule 55 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1995 pursuant to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and Another Vs. M/s. D.P. Metals, on sufficient cause being shown whether any authority empowered would be justified in not imposing the penalty in the absence of mens rea being proved? (iv) Whether the mens rea is required to be proved as a necessary ingredient for imposing of penalty under sub-section (5) of Section 78 on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. (ii) The mens rea is not required to be proved as necessary ingredient for imposition of penalty under sub-section (5) of Section 78, on proving violation of sub-section(2) of Section 78 of the RST Act, 1994. (iii) The amendment to Rule 55 of the RST Rules, 1995, in pursuance to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan And Another Vs. M/s. D.P. Metals(supra), authorises the authority empowered, to make an enquiry of violation of Section 78(2), and not to adjudicate a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Corporation Ltd. and other connected Sales Tax Revisions, were ordered to be sent back and listed before the Bench having jurisdiction to decide the matters, in accordance with the opinion given and the answers provided by the Larger Bench on such opinion and accordingly the instant revision petition is being decided. 5. Brief facts, which can be noticed, are that the vehicle of the assessee, bearing No.RJ-14/G-7228 was intercepted on 21/06/1996 and after perusing the photo copy of Bill No.575 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ingly imposed penalty under Section 78(5) @ 20% of the estimated value. 6. The matter was assailed by the assessee before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) (for short, 'DC(A)') who allowed the appeal and deleted the penalty, however, on further appeal by the revenue, the Tax Board reversed the order of the DC(A) and upheld the penalty. 7. Instant petition was filed by Shri RB Mathur on behalf of the petitioner-assessee, however, he became standing counsel for the revenue long back and du .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

mposed in the year 1996 and now in the light of the judgment rendered by the Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (supra), the matter is disposed of accordingly after perusing the material available on record. 8. In the light of the judgment of the Larger Bench in the case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.(supra) and of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Guljag Industries Vs .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version