ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER GANGANAGAR 41 Vs. GANESH CHIMINI EEAT BHATTA UTPADAK SAHAKARI SAMITI LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Sales Tax Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act against the order dated 11th of March, 1988 passed by the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the asses see Ganesh Chimini In Bhatta Utpadak Samiti Limited is a registered dealer and at the relevant time doing the business of production and sale of bricks. The assessment for the assessment year 1972-73 and 1973- 74 was completed by the Assessing Authority under section 10 (4) (I) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. The assessing authority while completing the assessment, came to the conclusion that for a period 1. 7. 72 to 30. 6. 74 there was a concealment of tax by the assessee-non-petitioner. The Assessing authority therefore made the addition of As. 12,323. 74 P. as tax for the assessment year 1972-73 and he also added an amount of As. 13,174. 17p. for the assessment year 1973-74. The Assessing Authority also imposed a penalty under section 16 (1) (i) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act amounting to As. 24,000/- for the assessment year 1972-73 and As. 23,000/- for the assessment year 1973-74. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer (ANSI Evasion) Shri Ganganagar the asses see preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) Commercial Taxes Bikaner who by his order dated 15th April 1984 dismissed the appeal filed by the asses see. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) the asses see preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Jaipur and the Tribunal by its judgment dated 11. 03. 1988 allowed the appeal filed by the asses see by holding that the account-books kept by the asses see which was not believed by the assessing authority on flimsy grounds and on the basis of which the order of penalty and addition has been made but these very account books have been accepted by the assessing authority for the subsequent years and, therefore, this made the addition of tax as well as the imposition of penalty wholly illegal. The Tribunal further held that the addition of tax as well as the imposition of penalty has no basis and the Tribunal therefore refused to levy penalty but however, with the consent of the parties made addition of tax of As. 12,000/-only.