COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER, ANTI-EVASION Vs. TEJPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS sales tax revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner -Department assailing the order dated October 1, 2009, passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (for short, "Tax Board"), dismissing the appeal of the petitioner -Department and upholding the order dated January 31, 2008 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) (for short, "the DC (A)"). The brief facts emerging from the face of record are that the respondent herein is a driver, while carrying some goods (200 bags of rice) on March 12, 2005 in the vehicle No. HR -61/0855 at Mandrela -Jhunjhunu route, the said vehicle was stopped and interrogated by the flying squad and upon interrogation, it was found that along with goods the original bill No. 211 dated March 11, 2005 of M/s. Amit Trading Company, Surajgarh was there for being delivered to M/s. Ghanshyamdas Murlidhar & Company, Fatehpur.

(2.) IT is claimed by the assessing officer that the investigation was made by Commercial Taxes Officer (for short, "CTI") on March 13, 2005 and on investigation by CTI, it was found that the office/shop of M/s. Amit Trading Company, Surajgarh was closed, on further verification from nearby shop owners, it came to be known that there is no trading of rice in Surajgarh Mandi, the financial condition of owner of M/s. Amit Trading Company is not good and that he has a very small shop, taken on rent in Surajgarh Mandi. On enquiry from M/s. Ghanshyamdas Murlidhar & Company, Fatehpur, it was further found that even M/s. Ghanshyamdas Murlidhar & Company, Fatehpur reiterated that neither it placed any order nor any goods were purchased by it as per bill No. 211 of March 11, 2005 for purchase of 200 bags of rice from M/s. Amit Trading Company, Surajgarh.

(3.) AGAINST this order of levying penalty under section 78(10A) of the Act, the respondent -driver submitted an appeal before the DC (A), Jaipur.