Tax Management India. Com
Subscription  |   New User  |   Login
Acts/ Rules Notifications Circulars Forms Tariff/ ITC HSN Case Laws Manuals Short Notes
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commercial Taxes Officer (Anti Evasion-III) , Hqr., Jaipur Versus Kartar Singh

2015 (3) TMI 1218 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

Imposition of penalty under section 22A(7) of CST Act - inter-state sale - goods sent from Jaipur to Mumbai - statement of driver that goods sent to Jaipur - discrepancy in the documents as well as version of the driver of the respondent - principles of natural justice - Held that: - Principles of natural justice demand that not only the report of the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer dt.07/06/1991 before imposing of the penalty or before passing of an order ought to have been provided to the 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

for providing an opportunity now, but, it is too late to remand the matter since penalty was imposed in the year 1991 and almost 24 years have passed and, it is not appropriate to restore the matter back to the Assessing Officer to grant a fresh opportunity now. Even otherwise it is essentially a finding of fact and no question of law can be said to arise out of the order of the Tax Board - No illegality, infirmity or perversity in the order impugned - petition dismissed - decided against petit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Evasion, Wing, Circle-II, Jaipur of the Revenue and on inspection, it was noticed that C.R. Sheets were being transported from Delhi to Bombay. The respondents produced builty No.812 dt.21/03/1991 of Mukesh Freight Carrier, Delhi and from the builty it was noticed that the seller of the goods was M/s. Delhi Iron Corporation and consignee was self. It contained BST No.NIC/39618 dt.20/01/1979 and CST No.MAH/IC- 28461 dt.20/01/1979 and the total weight of the goods was 12095 Kg. and valued at 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

the documents as well as version of the driver of the respondent. The Assessing Officer noticed that goods were being sent with the intention of evasion of tax and penalty under section 22A(7) at ₹ 27,673/- was imposed. 3. Dissatisfied with the imposition of penalty, the matter was carried in appeal and the DC (A) sustained the penalty. The respondent carried the matter in further appeal before the Tax Board who vide impugned order deleted the penalty. Hence this petition. 4. Ld. counsel f .....

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 contended that question of law arise out of the order of the Tax Board and needs consideration by this Court. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the revenue and in my view no interference is required in the order impugned as the Tax Board after appreciation of evidence on record and after noticing the facts, have deleted the penalty by well by a reasoned order. 6. Admittedly the vehicle was intercepted on 22/03/1991, the respondent filed its explanation before the 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

 

 

 

 

 



Share:            

| Home | About us | Contact us | Disclaimer | Terms | Privacy |

©Taxmanagementindia.com
A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.
All rights reserved.

Go to Desktop Version