9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Check Post, the driver of the vehicle produced builty No.674 of Ayush Transport Company dt.28/12/1996 and also produced consignment note of 55 motorcycles and the consignor being Escorts Yamaha Motor Limited and the consignee being Escorts Yamaha Motor Limited (Sales Depot), Jaipur. The vehicle also contained invoice No.1715 dt. 28/12/1996 of Escorts Yamaha Motor Limited. A dispatch advise of the said motorcycles bearing No.1715 dt.28/12/1996 was also produced by the driver. A declaration form ST-18-A bearing No.15378/15 was also produced but columns were left blank except that name of consignor and consignee was mentioned alongwith registration number. The officers of Anti Evasion Wing were prima-facie satisfied with the goods being dispa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... particulars were not filled in, it was no declaration in the eyes of law and the declaration form has to be filled in all respect and that is the mandate of Rule 53 of the RST Rules. She contended that both the appellate authorities have gone wrong in deleting the penalty.She relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Guljag Industries Vs. Commercial Taxes Officer: 2007 (18) Tax Update 321 6. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that even the AO had found that the bills and vouchers were complete in all respect except that the declaration form ST-18-A was incomplete. However, he contended that all the three authorities have taken into consideration that the goods were being transported as a stock transfer fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court in the case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. M/s. I.C.I. (India) Ltd., Jaipur, SB Sales Tax Revision Petition No.50/2008, decided on 03/05/2013, has held that prior to 30/03/2000, there was no necessity of carrying declaration form. 8. Though admittedly, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Guljag Industries Vs. Commercial Taxes Officer (supra) does support claim of the revenue but at least on the facts found noticed in the instant case, admittedly the goods were being dispatched on 29/12/1996 much before 30/03/2000, the order of the Tax Board is required to be upheld though for the reasons assigned by it and the additional reason observed by this Court herein before and in my view, it is a finding of fact and no q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
