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

2015 (5) TMI 1050 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

2015 (5) TMI 1050 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT - [2015] 86 VST 332 (Raj) - Imposition of penalty - section 22A(7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 - branch/stock transfer - mobil oil of the respondent-assessee was being carried in vehicle - declaration form ST-18A was not available with the vehicle - requirement of mens rea - Held that:- in so far as the issue of mens rea is concerned, when the Larger Bench of this court has already opined that mens rea is not essential, therefore, the issue, with .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d. Admittedly, it is a case of branch/stock transfer and therefore, on this alternative plea and in the light of the judgment in assessees' own case reported in [2015 (11) TMI 1078 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT], and the judgment rendered by this court in the case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Kamlesh Kumar Rajesh Kumar [2013 (3) TMI 631 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT], the instant revision petition deserves to be dismissed though for different reasons. - Decided against the revenue - S. B. Sales Ta .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

decide the following questions framed after noticing a conflict of opinions in the Division Bench judgments of this court in Parashwanath Granite India Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan (D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4250 of 1998 decided on June 2, 2004) [2006] 144 STC 271 (Raj); [2005] (1) RLR 291, and in Maharana Talkies v. State of Rajasthan (D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 858 of 1994, decided on November 29, 2004), reported in [2004] 19 Sales Tax Today 239, as well as Lalji Mulji Transport Company .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

iii) Whether in view of the amendment to rule 55 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1995 pursuant to the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. D. P. Metals [2001] 124 STC 611 (SC), 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 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

f determining the liability for penalty, in terms of section 78(5) of the RST Act, 1994. (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 honourable Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. D. P. Metals [2001] 124 STC 611 (SC), authorises the authori .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the instant sales tax revision and other connected sales tax revisions, the same had been ordered to be 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. The brief facts, which can be noticed, are that mobil oil of the respondent-assessee was being carried in vehicle No. DIL-4500 on July 13, 1995 from IOC, Delhi to IOC, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Tax Board has, solely on the basis that mens rea was not there and that other documents supported the goods being carried out, has deleted the penalty when in the light of judgment of the Larger Bench of this court mens rea was not required to be proved as a necessary ingredient for imposition of penalty and the judgment of the Tax Board on merits deserves to be reversed. She also relied on the judgment of honourable apex court in the case of Guljag .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ht of the Notification No. 4(1)FD/Tax/Div/2003-314 dated March 30, 2000 and admittedly, the transaction was prior to March 30, 2000. He further contended that in the assessees' own case, this court has already taken a view that in the case of branch transfer or stock transfer, if the transaction is prior to March 30, 2000, carrying of declaration form ST-18A was not required and thus penalty is not required to be levied on account of this alternative plea. He relied upon the judgment rendere .....

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