ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER Vs. AGARWAL STEEL INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer against judgment and order dated March 19, 2002 (annexure 5) passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, in Appeal No. 1065/1997 by which the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.

(2.) IT arises in the following circumstances : 'on August 26, 1996, near Banar Check-post, District Jodhpur, the vehicle No. DIG/6229, which was carrying 162 pieces of CI pipes and fittings belonging to the respondent M/s. Agarwal Steel Industries, was intercepted and checked by the petitioner-Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer and during checking, it was found that the declaration form S. T. 18a was not accompanied with the goods. Since the goods in transit were not accompanied with the declaration form S. T. 18a, therefore, a notice under section 78 (5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1994") for violation of the provisions of section 78 (2) of the Act of 1994 read with rule 53 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1995") was issued by the assessing authority to the respondent-dealer as to why penalty be not imposed. '

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and gone through the entire materials available on record. There is no dispute on the point that on August 26, 1996 when the vehicle in question carrying the goods in question of the respondent was checked by the petitioner, the declaration form S. T. 18a was not found. However, rest documents and papers were found valid and correct one. Point No. 1 The case of the petitioner is that the goods in question were notified goods and therefore, accompanying of declaration form S. T. 18a was necessary. On the other hand, the case of the respondent is that the goods in question were not notified goods and therefore, declaration form S. T. 18a was not required. In this respect, both lower appellate authorities came to the conclusion that the goods in question were not notified goods and thus, it was not necessary to accompany the declaration form S. T. 18a with the goods. In my considered opinion, the above findings of the lower appellate authorities on point No. 1 cannot be accepted.