REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

MUTHA PREMRAJ Appellant

V/S

ASSTT. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

SHERRAS VS. DE RUTEN [REFERRED TO]
ADDL. COMMISSIONER,INCOME TAX VS. DURGA PANDARI NATH TULIJAYYA & CO. [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. NARAIN SINGH & ORS. [REFERRED TO]
BENGAL IRON MERCHANT ASSOCIATION & ANR. VS. COMMISSIONER,COMMERCIAL TAX & ANR. [REFERRED TO]
KISHORI LAL RAKESH KUMAR MANDI VS. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX [REFERRED TO]
SAI ELECTRICALS P LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX [REFERRED TO]
ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER,FLYING SQUADE VS. VOLTAS LTD. [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX VS. M/S. RAMA AND SONS,GENERAL MERCHANT,BALLIA [REFERRED TO]
MAQBOOL HUSSAIN VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
MEENAKSHI MILLS LIMITED MADURAI VS. COMMISSIONER OF INOOME TAX MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
C A ABRAHAM VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER KOTTAYAM [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD VS. BHIKAJI DADABNAI AND CO [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN STEEL LIMITED VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
JAIN BROS VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX U P LUCKNOW VS. PARSON TOOLS AND PLANTS KANPUR [REFERRED TO]
KHEMKA AND COMPANY AGENCIES PVT LIMITED STATE OF MYSORE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA: GULDAS NARASAPPA THIMMAIAH OIL MILLS [REFERRED TO]
DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER SOUTHERN RAILWAY UNION OF INDIA VS. T R CHELLAPPAN:NARSINGH:ABDUL HAMID [REFERRED TO]
R S JOSHI SALES TAX OFFICER GUJARAT J S JOSHI SALES TAX OFFICER GUJARAT VS. AJIT MILLS LTD:IDAR TALUKA SAHAKARI [REFERRED TO]
CEMENT MARKETING CO OF INDIA LIMITED VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX INDORE [REFERRED TO]
SHIV DUTT RAI FATEH CHAND OM PRAKASH SHEO PRAKASH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
GUJARAT TRAVANCORE AGENCY COCHIN VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KERALA ERNAKULAM [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. KALYAN DAS RASTOGI [REFERRED TO]
N K JAIN VS. C K SHAH [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ADDITIONAL GUJARAT VS. I M PATEL AND CO [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT VS. M C T M CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. D P METALS [REFERRED TO]
BHAGIRATHI AGARWAL AND BRORS VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYA ELECTRICALS VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER WARD II CIRCLE D JAIPUR VS. RAMESH LEAR STORES [REFERRED TO]
MAHAVEER CONDUCTORS VS. ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER WARD III CIRCLE C JODHPUR RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first revision petition has been filed under Sec. 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 against the judgment and order of the Rajasthan Tax Board (for short, "the Board') dated 1.11.2000 (Annx.7), by which the Board has reversed the judgment and order of the Appellate Authority dated 18.11.96 (Annex.6) and upheld the order dated 23.9.95 (Annex.5) passed by the Assessing Authority, by which the penalty and been imposed under Sec. 22-A (7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (for short, "the Act") for carrying the goods without the prescribed declaration Form ST 18-A as required under the Statute. THE second revision petition (No. 937/2001) has been filed against the judgment and order dated 18.1.2001 (Annex.7) passed by the Board reversing the judgment and order of the Appellate Authority dated 24.8.96 (Annex.6) and upholding the order dated 20.9.94 (Annex.5) passed by the Assessing Authority imposing the penalty for carrying the goods with not correct particulars in the Bill.

(2.) MR. Dinesh Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that in both the cases, the facts are similar and only a pure question of law is involved and Revision Petition No. 343/2001 may be taken as a leading case for decision of both the cases.

(3.) MR. Mehta has submitted that the penalty, being penal in nature, cannot be imposed unless means rea is established and be imposed unless mens rea is established and by adducing sufficient evidence it is proved by the Revenue that there was an intent on the part of the assessee to evade tax and as the assessee had sent the required declaration Form ST 10-A to the consignor, such an intention could not be established.

Click here to view full judgment.

MUTHA PREMRAJ Vs. ASSTT COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address