TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 1053X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deleting the same, therefore, the order of the Tax Board is quashed and set aside and order of the assessing officer is restored. - Decided in favor of revenue. - S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 57 of 2002 - - - Dated:- 27-5-2015 - J.K. Ranka, J. Archit Bohra for the Petitioner None Appeared for the Respondent ORDER Instant sales tax revision petition is directed against the order dated January 28, 2002 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer in Appeal No. 1442/99/Jaipur whereby the appeal filed by the Revenue has been dismissed. It may be observed that a Larger Bench was constituted by honourable the Chief Justice to resolve and decide the following questions framed after noticing a conflict of opinions in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 ? The Larger Bench of this court vide order dated February 26, 2015 passed in Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. [2015] 82 VST 200 (Raj) [FB] in Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 92 of 1999 and other connected revision petitions has answered the questions as follows (pages 223 and 224 in 82 VST): (i) The requirement of mens rea is not relevant for the purpose of 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 amendme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eing carried on in the said vehicle and a show-cause notice was accordingly given and being not satisfied with the explanation so offered, penalty was levied under section 78(5) of the RST Act. The matter was carried in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) who though found that there were several over writings and cuttings but held that all the overwritings and cuttings, were minor, it can be on account of human error or clerical error and allowed the appeal by deleting the said penalty. The Revenue carried appeal before the Tax Board, who also upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), who had deleted the penalty. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that it is a case where cuttings and overwriting n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his Court in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. [2015] 82 VST 200 (Raj) [FB] and the judgment of the honourable apex court in the case of Guljag Industries v. Commercial Taxes Officer reported in [2007] 9 VST 1 (SC); [2007] 293 ITR 584 (SC); [2007] 7 SCC 269, in my view, the Tax Board as well as the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) ought not to have deleted the penalty in the manner which has been deleted because it is a clear-cut case of over- writing and cuttings in almost all columns and once there were over writings and cuttings in the declaration form, by holding that it could have been on account of human error or clerical error was not sufficient for the Tax Board in coming to the said conclusion. The honourable apex court in the case of Gulja ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
