(1.) INSTANT revision petition has been filed by the petitioner -Department being aggrieved by the order of the Tax Board by which the Tax Board, while rejecting the Revenue's appeal, upheld the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and thus both the appellate authorities below held that the penalty under section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 could not be imposed on the respondent -assessee, if the declaration form ST 18 -A prescribed under rule 53 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules read with section 81 of the Act was found blank or not completely filled up, if other supporting bills, vouchers, documents found at the time of checking of the goods like sales book, transport, etc., were found in order. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the honourable apex court in the case of Guljag Industries v. Commercial Taxes Officer reported in : [2007] 9 VST 1 (SC) : [2007] 293 ITR 584 (SC) : [2007] 7 SCC 269 and Bajaj Electricals Limited reported in : [2008] 18 VST 436 (SC) : [2009] 1 SCC 308 has decided the controversy in favour of the Revenue -petitioner and accordingly this revision petition deserves to be allowed.
(2.) HOWEVER , it is noticed that thereafter, this court, considering all the facts and circumstances and the judgments, has expressed that principles of natural justice have to be followed and accordingly this court in the cases of Commercial Taxes Officer v. Jain Tubes reported in, [2011] 30 Tax Update 125, ACTO v. Hariom Company reported in, [2011] 30 Tax Update 285 and so also the judgment of this court passed in the case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Madhusudan Soap Udyog : [2014] 69 VST 81 (Raj) (SB Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 151 of 2011, decided on May 9, 2013) has remanded the matter back to the assessing officer to provide an opportunity afresh and consequently, the respondent herein also deserves to be allowed opportunity of fresh hearing in the light of the directions of the honourable apex court supra and this court.