TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1509X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - S. B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 116 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 22-9-2015 - Mr. J.K. Ranka, J. Ms. Meenal Ghiya for Mr. R.B. Mathur, for petitioners None present for respondent ORDER Instant petition is directed against judgment dated 29.10.2004 of the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, where the penalty under Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, imposed by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Dy. Commissioner(Appeals), was reversed by the Tax Board. 2. The brief facts are that on 3.1.1998 when vehicle (truck) bearing no.RJ14 G 2807, which was intercepted at Badgaon Check-post, Kota, it was noticed by the Anti Evasion wing that 51 Iron Forged Flanges were being transported from Delhi to Gadepan, Kota. The driver of the vehicle produced builty G.R. Nos.16882 and 16883 of the Transport Corporation of India Ltd. dated 1.1.1998, and sale bill nos.682, 683, 684 and 685 of M/s Golden Iron Steel Works, New Delhi, dated 1.1.1998, and ST 18-A declaration form nos.016194 and 014426. 3. On perusal of the declaration forms ST 18-A it was noticed by the Officer that it was incomplete, as it did not contain the nature of items carried, quantity, weig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Raj.). 5. None appeared on behalf of the respondent despite service of notice. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the Revenue. Admittedly, all the three authorities, though have found that the declaration form ST 18-A was incomplete and not only material particulars (though the declaration form was found) but several columns were found blank at the time when the vehicle was intercepted. The finding recorded by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Dy. Commissioner(Appeals) that material particulars in the declaration form ST 18-A was blank, but there were also other material defects/discrepancies noticed in the sale bill, builty, which have been detailed by the Assessing Officer in the order dated 24.1.1998 and such finding of fact has not been dispelled even by the Tax Board. In my view, the order of the Tax Board is wholly perverse and unjustified in holding that technicalities need not come in the way in carrying declaration form ST 18-A. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Guljag Industries (supra) had an occasion to consider an identical issue about incomplete/blank declaration forms and it has been opined by the Hon'ble Apex Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RST Act 1994. 25. There is dichotomy between contravention of Section 78(2) of the said Act which invites strict civil liability on the assessee and the evasion of tax. When a statement of import/export is not filed before the A.O. it results in evasion of tax, however, when the goods in movement are carried without the declaration Form ST 18-A/18-C then strict liability comes in, in the form of Section 78(5) of the said Act. Breach of Section 78(2) imposes strict liability under Section 78(5) because as stated above goods in movement cannot be carried without Form ST 18-A/18-C. 26. We are not concerned with non-filing of statements before the A.O. We are concerned with the goods in movement being carried without supporting declaration forms. The object behind enactment of Section 78(5) which gives no discretion to the competent authority in the matter of quantum of penalty fixed at 30 per cent of the estimated value is to provide to the State a remedy for the loss of revenue. The object behind enactment of Section 78(5) is to emphasise loss of revenue and to provide a remedy for such loss. It is not the object of the said Section to punish the offender for having committed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty for contravention of Section 78(2). The assessees were fully aware that the goods in movement had to be supported by Form ST 18-A/18-C. Therefore, they made the goods travelled with the forms. However, the said forms are left blank in all material respects. Therefore, A.O. was right in drawing inference of mens rea against the assessees. 8. Therefore, in my view, the instant case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Guljag Industries (supra). 9. Even the Larger Bench of this court in the case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (2015) 82 VST 200 (Raj.), has also touched upon this very controversy and has held that carrying of declaration form duly filled-in ought to have been with the vehicle where the goods are being carried and further held that mens rea is not essential in such cases. 10. Insofar as the finding of the Tax Board that no penalty could have been imposed on owner of the goods prior to 22.3.2002 which has been relied upon by the Tax Board, even the said finding has been reversed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in ACTO v. Bajaj Electricals Limited (supra). It would be appropriat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egislature 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 prevarication we hold that the Dy. Commissioner(A) was right in holding that all the above excuses are trotted out as an afterthought. Even the production of the Form before the Dy. Commissioner(A) was an afterthought. Under the 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
