ACTO Vs. ASIAN PAINTS (INDIA) LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS sales tax revision petition has been filed against the order dated May 8, 2008, passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, (hereinafter "the Board") holding that as form ST -18A was not required to accompany the goods in transit in the course of stock transfer of goods prior to March 30, 2000, no penalty could have been levied on account of contents of the said form. The levy of penalty on the assessee under section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, was set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Board has failed to take into consideration the effect of the discrepancy in the value of the goods in transit varying in the several documents required to accompany the goods. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the court to section 78(4) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter "the 1994 Act") and submitted that discrepancy in value of goods in different documents accompanying the goods in transit ought to have been taken into consideration by the Board for upholding the levy of penalty. It is submitted that value of goods as reflected in the bills and goods transport receipt on the one hand and consignment note on the other was admittedly different and on this ground alone penalty was leviable on the assessee.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.

(3.) THE discrepancy in the value of goods as alleged in the documents accompanying goods in transit cannot in my considered opinions per se entail any falsehoods forgery qua the documents in issue. It could have been a case of a mere inadvertent error. In any event of the matter the discrepancy in value of goods as recorded in different documents accompanying goods in transit ought to have been addressed by the assessing officer after giving to the person authorised or owner of the goods a reasonable opportunity of being heard and holding an enquiry as required in law. This has not been done in the present case and the penalty was visited by the assessing officer upon the assessee on the mere discrepancy of value of goods in documents accompanying the goods. Counsel for the petitioner could not point out to the court as to the potential loss of tax to the office even in an extreme situation due to the discrepancy alleged in value of goods in transit, admittedly under branch transfer.