Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Flying Squad Zone-I, Jaipur Versus Khetan Sales Corporation

Levy of penalty - section 78(5) of the RST Act, 1994 - Held that:- In the light of the judgment of the honourable Larger Bench of this court and the judgment of the honourable apex court in Guljag Industries v. Commercial Taxes Officer mens rea is not essential. Such overwritings and cuttings in declaration form, in all columns would certainly fall in the category of forged, fabricated or false declaration form and therefore, in my view, the assessing officer was correct in levying the penalty 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

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 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) [2006] 144 STC 271 (Raj); [2005] (1) RLR 291, decided .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

her the mens rea is required to be proved as a necessary ingredient for imposition of penalty under sub-section (5) of section 78 on proven violation of sub-section (2) of section 78 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 ? (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 emp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

] 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ot 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." After answering the questions in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. [2015] 82 VST 200 (Raj) [FB] and other connected sales tax revisions, the matters were ordered to be listed before the Bench having jurisdiction to decide the matters, in accordance with the opinion given by the Larger Bench on such opinion, acc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ncies also in the invoices which were being 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 allowe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t make material difference as several discrepancies were noticed, he further contended that in the original form while earlier 8472 kg. was mentioned which was corrected to 9196 kg. He further contended that there was some price of material earlier which was corrected to ₹ 6,90,737.50 and even the bill number was changed from B5121 to B5175. He further contended that in the light of the judgment rendered by the honourable apex court in the case of Guljag Industries v. Commercial Taxes Offi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tended that the order of the Tax Board deserves to be reversed. None appeared on behalf of the respondent despite notices having been served. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner and perused the judgment of the honourable Larger Bench of this 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 IT .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     Updates     ↓  


|| 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