TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly mentioned that the bills and vouchers were found and except at one place CST number of one of the parties was not found that does not mean that the bill becomes forged, wrong or otherwise. Even the AO, in the assessment order imposing penalty has stated, name of purchaser along with bill number, builty number, etc. In the case of Commercial Taxes Officer, Alwar v. Globe Transport Corporation [2013 (2) TMI 788 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT], which was also a case of goods being checked in the State when it was not intended to be delivered in the State of Rajasthan and this court found that 25 bundles of iron springs and 25 bundles of axles, were being sent from Khanna (Punjab) to Sarkhej (Gujarat). However, merely because the vehicle did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , by the authorized officers of the petitioner-Department and it was found that the incharge produced, builty, bill and other vouchers but with reference to gutka, the CST number of the consignee was not noticed and therefore, the Assessing Officer (for short, the AO ) came to the prima facie conclusion that the goods are to be delivered in the State of Rajasthan and on this premise, a show-cause notice was issued and dissatisfied with the explanation, penalty under section 78(5) of the Act was imposed. The matter was carried in appeal before the DC (A) who was satisfied with the explanation offered by the respondent-assessee and held that the goods were not meant to be delivered in Rajasthan and therefore, there was no occasion of impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uchers were found and except at one place CST number of one of the parties was not found that does not mean that the bill becomes forged, wrong or otherwise. Even the AO, in the assessment order imposing penalty has stated, name of purchaser along with bill number, builty number, etc. In the case of Commercial Taxes Officer, Alwar v. Globe Transport Corporation [2014] 2 VST-OL 575 (Raj) (S. B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 165 of 2011), decided on February 26, 2013, which was also a case of goods being checked in the State when it was not intended to be delivered in the State of Rajasthan and this court found that 25 bundles of iron springs and 25 bundles of axles, were being sent from Khanna (Punjab) to Sarkhej (Gujarat). However, mer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in Swastic Roadways v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bharatpur [1996] 103 STC 106 (MP). 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 tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
