TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 858X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Evasion Wing Flying Squad, Kota wherein it was found that the vehicle was carrying 234 bags of Binola and the same were being transported from Saindwa (M.P.) to Kishangarh Renwal (Raj.). On asking the In-charge/driver of the vehicle produced GR No.496 dt.05/01/2001 as also bills and vouchers and other documents. However the said vehicle was not carrying declaration Form ST-18A and it was noticed by the Authorized Officer that since declaration Form ST-18A was not found, therefore, there was violation of 78(2) read with Rule 53 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. A show cause notice was issued and on show cause notice, the respondent accepted that there was mistake in not carrying of declaration Form ST-18A and he was ready and willing to pay penalty and to pass an order on the same day i.e. 10/01/2001 itself. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty u/S. 78(5). The same was assailed before the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals), however, on the premise that the goods were transported prior to 22.03.2002, the penalty could have been imposed only on In-charge/driver of the vehicle, the penalty was deleted. 3. The Tax Board in the light of judgment of the Tax Board (full Benc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recorded by all the Authorities except that at one place, though, the Tax Board has specifically mentioned that declaration Form ST-18A was not found, however, in the last para of the impugned order, reference has been given that bill number and vehicle number was not mentioned in the declaration Form ST- 18A but this finding of the Tax Board is contrary to its own observation on page-1 of the impugned order as well as in the first para of page-2 of the impugned order and also specific finding of the Assessing Officer so also the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the petition is being disposed of as if there is no declaration Form ST-18A placed by the respondent-assessee before the Assessing Officer despite specific notice, as well as before the higher authorities even after show cause notice. The claim of the Tax Board can be negated in the sense that even before the Assessing Officer, the respondent-assessee admitted that there was a mistake in not carrying of declaration Form ST-18A despite specific notice which has been given to the respondent-assessee. It was contended by the assessee that necessary order may be passed at the time of inspection when notice was given of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tuted by the words the owner of the goods or a person authorized in writing by such owner or person in-charge of the goods . It is once again emphasized that Act 7 of 2002 is an exercise in substitution. Therefore, the Legislature seeks to clarify the expression person in-charge of the goods occurring in Section 78(5) as it stood earlier by Act 7 of 2002. In fact, it is interesting to note that even under Section 22-A(3) of the 1954 Act, penalty was leviable on the owner of the goods for possession of goods not covered by the Goods Vehicle Record [including Declaration under Section 22-A(3)]. 30. Before concluding, on facts, we may point out that before the A.O. the respondent contended that filling of the Form ST 18-A was the responsibility of the transporter and the consignor (which argument presupposes that the respondent had not filled the particulars in Form ST 18-A) whereas before the Dy. Commissioner (A) a Form was produced purportedly sent to the consignor which was not accepted. According to the Commissioner(A) it was an after-thought. Before the Tax Board it was submitted by the respondent that a blank Form was sent to the consignor. In view of the above prevaric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given by the consignee is meaningless. There are no facts given in Part-A. There is no identity of the goods transported. There is no description of the goods in movement. As stated above, the original has to be placed before the A.O. by the officer at the check-post. If the form which ultimately goes to the A.O. is blank in all material respects then it is impossible for the A.O. to assess the dealer and it is this practice which has resulted in loss of revenue in crores to the State. Without description of the goods imported, it is easy to manipulate the value. If material particulars are not submitted, one fails to understand how assessment could be finalized. Moreover, as submitted on behalf of the State it has become a common practice to circulate the same form again and again resulting in loss of revenue to the State. It is for this reason that Rule 53 of the RST Rules, 1995 contemplates the form to be submitted duly filled in and duly completed. In the present case, the goods in movement were not supported by duly filled in Form ST 18-A/18-C. Therefore, there was contravention of Section 78(2) of the RST Act 1994. 25. There is dichotomy between contravention of Section 78 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e carried without the declaration forms. In the present matter, as stated above, goods in movement were carried with the declaration forms. These forms were duly signed, however, material particulars were not filled in. The explanation given by the assessees in most of the cases is that they are not responsible for the misdeeds of the consignors. The other explanation given by the assessees is regarding the language problem. There is no merit in these defences. They are excuses. The declaration forms were unfilled so that they could be used again and again. The forms were collected by the consignee from the said Department. The consignee undertakes to see that the value of the goods is supplied by the consignor. It is not open to the consignee to keep the column in respect of the description of goods as blank. Even the column dealing with nature of transaction is left blank. The consignee is the buyer of the goods. He knows the descriptions of the goods which he is supposed to buy. There is no reason for leaving that column blank. Therefore, there are no special circumstances in any case for waiver of penalty for contravention of Section 78(2). The assessees were fully aware that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
