SANTOSH STEEL Vs. ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant sales tax revision petition, under section 84 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (in short, "the VAT") has been filed by the petitioner -assessee, assailing the order passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (in short, "the Tax Board") dated October 21, 2009 in Appeal No. 1142 of 2008, whereby it accepted the appeal filed by the petitioner -Department by upholding the order of imposition of penalty under section 76(6) of the VAT Act, passed by the learned assessing officer and reversed the order passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes Department, Bharatpur, (in short, "the DC(A)"), dated October 17, 2007 who had quashed and set aside the order of penalty passed by the learned ACTO (FS), (in short, "the ACTO"). The brief facts as emerging on the face of the record is that a vehicle bearing No. HR -12 -GA -0425 was intercepted by the ACTO (FS), Alwar of the respondent -Department on Behror Tatarpur Road on March 27, 2007. In the said vehicle, the ACTO found "iron girders" which were being transported from Hisar to Kishangarhbas. However, on verification from the Driver, Deepak Kumar, he produced a bill No. 15 dated March 27, 2007 of M/s. Santosh Steels, Kathuwas, Alwar and Builty No. 181 issued by Deepak Road Lines, Near Hanuman Mandir, Satrod Khurd, Hisar (Haryana) wherein the date has been mentioned as February 12, 2007 and against the name of the sender of the goods, it is mentioned as "Jindal". It bears FGL No. T 1406941512725. Since, there were contradictions in the statement of the truck driver viz   -viz, the bill and builty number, the vehicle was detained by the ACTO and a show -cause notice dated March 27, 2007 was issued for hearing on April 11, 2007. It was also noticed by the ACTO that the vehicle did not stop at the check -post. In response to the notice, one Bramh Prakash Agarwal appeared on March 27, 2007 itself and submitted an application and confirmed that he has received the notice and that he is unable to produce the books of accounts as also the declaration form No. ST -18A and other record on account of the fact that the accountant of the firm is out of town. He further submitted that as he has to deliver the goods urgently, the order may be passed today itself, and that he is ready to pay/deposit the amount of penalty then and there. He claimed to have filed reply on behalf of the petitioner. Since, the representative of the petitioner -firm has agreed for passing of the order then and there though time of about two weeks was granted and depositing the amount of penalty then and there, the respondent -Department was having no option except to consider the reply and to impose the penalty. Accordingly, the penalty as aforesaid was imposed under section 76(6) being 30 per cent of the value of the goods at Rs. 92,670 by holding that there is violation of provisions of section 76(2)(a) of the VAT Act.

(2.) DISSATISFIED with the order passed by the ACTO (FS), the petitioner -assessee, filed an appeal before the DC(A), Bharatpur, who after going through the material on record as well as the order passed by the ACTO (FS), vide order dated October 17, 2007 deleted penalty by accepting the contentions of the petitioner -appellant.

(3.) HENCE , this revision petition.