TMI Blog2013 (2) TMI 788X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case, emerging from the face of record, are that the respondent-assessee is a transport agency indulged in the business of carrying goods from one place to another. On 05/06/1999, goods, were being carried in Vehicle No.RJ-14-G-7421, and was sought to be checked at the check post of Shahjahanpur border by the CTO, Anti Evasion, Alwar but the vehicle did not stop and apprehending it to be a matter of tax evasion, the vehicle was chased and then it was stopped. The driver of the vehicle was required to produce necessary bills, vouchers declaration forms and he produced GR No.111843, 111844 dt. 31/05/1000 and alongwith these bilties, he also produced invoice No.271 dt. 31/05/1999, 273 dt. 31/05/1999 and challan of Globe Transport Corporation bearing No.14421 dt.04/06/1999. The goods, i.e. 144 bundles of iron springs and 25 bundles of axles, were being sent from Khanna (Punjab) to Sarkhej (Gujarat) and on enquiry, it was conveyed by the driver (Prahlad) that he does not have permit of Gujarat. On further checking, the officers found GR No.016232 dt. 01/06/1999; challan No.14420 dt. 04/06/1999; GR No.011698, 026103 dt.27/05/1999; 026107 dt.02/06/1999 of M/s. Globe Transport Compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A) and reiterated the facts pleaded before the CTO, and further submitted that without holding the bills and vouchers to be bogus, the CTO was unjustified in holding the respondent-assessee liable for penalty. It was pleaded that there might be some discrepancy, but even than all the papers were complete in all respect and there was no question of tax evasion by the respondent-assessee. It was further submitted that no prior notice was given either to the consignor or the consignee and imposition of penalty on the respondent-assessee (transporter) is wholly unjustified. It was further claimed before the DC(A) that the CTO did not make further independent verification and merely on assumptions and presumptions, held the bills were bogus and merely on the basis of alleged statement of the driver, the penalty has been imposed which is unjust in violation of principles of natural justice as well. The DC(A) was satisfied with the facts pleaded before it and after considering the authorities, referred to by the respondent-assessee, deleted the penalty. Dissatisfied with the deletion of the said penalty, an appeal was preferred before the Tax Board by the petitioner-department, assai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sarkhej (Ahmadabad) and M/s. National Automobiles, Bhilwara (Raj.) and since form 18-A was received from the firm registered at Bhilwara, therefore, both the papers were available with the driver. Merely finding two sets of bills despite of both being complete in all respect and have not been held to be bogus or forged, the penalty has rightly been deleted. Further, no enquiry whatsoever was made either from the purchaser(s) or the seller and, therefore, without further verification and merely on account of noticing certain deficiencies/errors, one cannot be held to be guilty and the CTO was not justified in imposing penalty. Had he interacted with the purchaser(s) as well as seller and had there been any other discrepancy, after interaction, he could certainly come to the conclusion of imposition of penalty. As regards not stopping the vehicle, drivers as they are, being not educated, it might be possible that the driver of the vehicle would have got terrorized upon trying to stop the vehicle or chasing it by the Flying Squad and upon putting indifferent questions. So, the proper course, available with the CTO, was to make proper enquiry from the persons concerned (purchaser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... down in Sant Lal's case (supra) was also followed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in Swastik Roadways and another v. Commercial Taxes Officer, Barhanpur and Others, (1996) 103 STC 106. It was held that no duty on clearing and forwarding agents and transporters or common carriers to furnish to the Commissioner, information including statement of accounts in respect of the transactions of any dealer or to maintain the registers in the prescribed forms could be cast. No penalty could be imposed upon them in the case of contravention of such provisions. In this view of the matter Section 22A, RST Act not being applicable, confined as it is to the checking of evasion of tax under the RST Act in Rajasthan, the question of imposing penalty under section 22A(7)RST Act in cases of goods transiting through Rajasthan cannot arise. The sales tax authorities of Rajasthan can, of course, stop and check any vehicle but if it contains goods coming from another State and bound for another State they can only insist and ensure that the goods leave Rajasthan. This Court in the case of ACTO, FS, Bharatpur Vs. M/s S Vrindavan Oil Products, Bharatpur, reported in (2006) Ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
