TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and there is no local tax. Penalty upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - S.B. Sales Tax (Vat) Revision Petition No. 42 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 2-12-2016 - Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J. For the Petitioner : Alkesh Sharma Adv. For the Respondent : Meenal Ghiya Adv. JUDGMENT 1. Instant petition is directed against the order dt.10.11.2012 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (in short 'the Tax Board ). 2. The brief facts noticed for disposal of the present petition are that on 22.01.2008, a vehicle bearing No.RJ-23/G-1471 which was coming from Deemapur (Assam) was intercepted/checked near New Aatish Market, Jaipur by the officer of the Revenue department. The driver/incharge of the vehicle produc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r being 2007 or 2008 and also took into consideration the challan bearing No.510 dt.21.01.2008 which proves that the goods were sold in transit and accordingly accepted the appeal. 4. The Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Tax Board which resulted into reversing the findings of the Dy. Commissioner (A) and allowing the appeal of the revenue. 5. Learned Counsel for the assessee contended that the driver/incharge had produced valid documents to justify the transportation of goods from Deemapur (Assam) to Jaipur and all the documents proved that the goods were being transported in proper manner. Counsel also contended that the goods under transit sale, was proved by producing the challan No.510 dt.21.01.2008 of having the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee was unable to prove that it was a transit sale, is a finding of fact recorded. No evidence or proof of transit sale was placed and mere alleging that it was a transit sale cannot be accepted and had rightly been rejected by the Tax Board. Counsel also contended that had it been a transit sale, at least on the documents, there ought to have been an endorsement about the name of so called M/s. Mangalam Sales and mere version unsupported by evidence is nothing but a mere a statement only. She contended that the assessee had to carry form E1-E2 if it was a case of transit sale. Counsel also contended that the so called challan is afterthought and it is a clear cut case of intention of evasion of tax. Even otherwise, challan No.510 dt.21 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as a transit sale, the due tax would be paid by the petitioner is contradictory as in the case of transit sale as per the CST Act, the tax is at concessional rate and there is no local tax. It is a finding of fact recorded by the Assessing Officer as well as by the Tax Board that the so called challan No.510 dt.21.01.2008 was produced later on at the time when the show cause was issued and has rightly been discarded by both the Authorities and there was no material before the Dy. Commissioner (A) who came to a finding that the challan No.510 dt.21.01.2008 was produced before the Assessing Officer by the driver/incharge. The claim of counsel for the assessee with vehemence about the challan No.510 being with driver was also proved in the neg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whereas the fact as noticed earlier, it is a mere version of the assessee that it was a transit sale unsupported by any material or evidence. 12. The fact in the case of ACTO, Anti Evasion, Ward II, Bharatpur Vs. K.S. Oil Ltd. (supra) is entirely distinguishable as in the said case it was held by the Tax Board that when the goods were in transit, those were duly dispatched and accompanied by all requisite documents and thus there appears no indication of any evidence to evade the tax whereas the findings as noticed above in the instant case is totally against the assessee. 13. The another judgment of Mahaveer Conductors (supra) is also distinguishable on facts and taking into consideration the judgment of the Apex Court in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
