COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER Vs. B K TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred against the order of the Rajasthan Tax Board as also the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) at Jaipur, who have been pleased to set aside the penalty imposed on the respondent-trader which had been levied by the Assessing Officer alleging dishonest intention and evasion of sales tax for the transaction of sale of certain quantity of mustard oil tanks. The Assessing Officer levied the penalty presuming that the respondent-trader is guilty of evasion of sales tax on the sale of the aforesaid oil-tanks since there were cuttings on the bilty indicating that the goods initially were to be dispatched to Indore in Madhya Pradesh but it was then cut out and was shown to have been dispatched to Orissa. Another allegation was that the respondent-trader had transported these oil tanks by not taking the usual route and had taken a different route for transporting these goods which was not the normal route. From these two circumstances, it was inferred by the Assessing Officer that the respondent-trader was guilty of dishonest intention of not paying the sales tax to the petitioner; hence imposed a penalty of Rs. 81,000 on the respondent. An appeal was preferred against the aforesaid order by the respondent-trader before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) at Jaipur who has pleased to set aside the order of the Assessing Officer as it was held therein that even though the cuttings were there on the bilty, the transaction of sale took place in the State of Rajasthan and sales tax to the extent of 1/2 per cent was also paid amounting to Rs. 1,222 which earlier had wrongly been shown to be 1 per cent. As the error in calculating the percentage of sales tax could be detected since sales tax should have been shown 1/2 (half) per cent in place of 1 per cent the cuttings were treated bona fide meaning thereby that the trader of Rajasthan to whom the sales tax was paid by the respondent at the rate of 1/2 per cent would be liable to pay the sales tax to the petitioner at the appropriate time and thereafter whether these goods were transported to Indore or to Orissa was hardly material. He was therefore pleased to set aside the order of the Assessing Officer against which the petitioner-Department of Commercial Taxes preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Tax Board who was also pleased to uphold the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) against which this revision has been filed by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle Dholpur.

(2.) THE counsel for the parties were heard and the counsel for the petitioner was directed to explain as to how he is alleging evasion of sales tax at the instance of the respondent even if there be cuttings on the bilties because the respondent-trader has already paid 1/2 (half) per cent tax on this transaction of sales which comes to Rs. 1,222. 60 for 90 quintals of oil. This was purchased from Uma Shankar Oil Mills which is based in Rajasthan meaning thereby that the respondent-trader had paid the sales tax at the rate of 1/2 per cent for this transaction of sale to Uma Shankar Oil Mills and Uma Shankar Oil Mills in turn would be liable to pay this sales tax to the Department of Commercial Taxes. THEreafter even if the respondent-trader who is from Indore has sold these goods to some trader in Orissa then in any case the Department of Commercial Taxes at Rajasthan would be able to realise the sale tax for the sale of these goods from Uma Shankar Oil Mills as it could be noticed that the sales tax for this transaction has already been paid by the respondent M/s. B. K. Traders, Indore, to Uma Shankar Oil Mills at Rajasthan. THE counsel for the respondent has also produced a photo copy of the receipt for this transaction which clearly shows that the sales tax on these goods have already been paid to Uma Shankar Oil Mills at Rajasthan. THE Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) as also the Rajasthan Tax Board are therefore wholly justified in setting aside the imposition of penalty alleging evasion of sales tax on this transaction of sale. THE impugned orders therefore does not require any interference and hence this revision petition stands dismissed. Petition dismissed. .