ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER WARD-III CIRCLE-A BIKANER Vs. CHANDAK AND COMPANY RANI BAZAR BIKANER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS a revision filed by the revenue against the order of Rajasthan Tax Board dt. 16. 6. 98 setting aside the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 22a (7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. The Assessing Officer has found that while goods were in transit with the transporter, the same were accompanied with the invoices and the builty which reveal the full particulars required thereunder. The goods were also accompanied with the ST18a form, however the same was not completely filled. But it did contain the requisite undertaking of the consignee under his signatures and other particular about consignee. Other requisite particulars were also apparent from the other accompanying documents. The assessing officer has found that one of the document accompanying the goods was incompletely filled. The penalty u/s. 78 (5) was levied by holding that it is not entitled now to fill the remaining details. THIS order has been affirmed by the Dy. Commissioner. However the Tribunal found that there no mensrea on the part of the assessee to avoid or evade tax can be inferred merely from the incomplete form No. ST18a. It may be noticed that observation to the fact that Form ST18a was completely blank is contrary to record.

(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that this revision has no merit. Obviously the consignee dealer could not at the time of furnishing form to the consignor did not have the full particulars with him so that Form ST 18a could be filled by him. The consignee is envisaged to disclose the number of details that relate to weight of goods loaded for transport by the consignor and details of the transporter, as well as invoice numbers. These particulars which come into existence only after the order has been placed and the Form ST18a is submitted to the consignor, at the consignor's end. Transporting of the goods is by the consigner. In these circumstances conclusion about want of mens rea on the part of consignee does not call for interference.