ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER Vs. RATHI BARS LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition under section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") has been filed by the petitioner -Department assailing the order of the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, (in short, "the Board") dated July 11, 2007 in Appeal No. 2542 of 2005 wherein, the Tax Board affirmed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Bharatpur, dated November 29, 2004, who had deleted the penalty under section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (for short, "the Act of 1994") amounting to Rs. 39,895. The revision petition was admitted on March 19, 2008 on the following substantial questions of law:

(2.) THE facts of the case are not in dispute as the goods were being carried by the respondent -assessee and was intercepted by the authorised officer of the Department. The relevant documents were produced and so far as the fact with regard to declaration form ST -18C is concerned, all the columns of the form were filled in however, in the column of invoice number and the date was not filled in and left blank on account of inadvertence. When the assessing officer, found the columns blank, he was not satisfied as according to him, the declaration form should be properly filled in, as it was mandatory on the part of the respondent -assessee to fill in all the columns when the goods were carried. Therefore, as per the A. O. there was violation of provision of rule 54 of the Rules, and accordingly, he imposed the penalty holding that there was intention of tax evasion by the respondent -assessee.

(3.) BEING dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned DC(A), the matter was further carried in appeal, by the petitioner -Department before the Tax Board, who after going through the material on record, confirmed the order passed by the DC(A) and rejected the appeal of the petitioner -Department, by holding that all the relevant documents were produced and only one column of the declaration form No. ST -18C was found to be blank, therefore, it could be on account of inadvertence and in such circumstances, it cannot be said that there was intention of tax evasion by the respondent -assessee.