ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER Vs. S S ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This sales tax revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 11.05.2010, passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer in appeal No.1483/2006/Tonk. By the impugned order, the Tax Board has dismissed the second appeal filed by the petitioner-Department against the order dated 31.12.2005, passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Kota, setting aside the penalty in the sum of Rs.84,270/- assessed by the Assessing Officer under his order dated 25.04.2005.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the respondent-assessee's vehicle No.RJ-26-G-0429 was checked on 15.04.2005. In the estimation of the Assessing Officer involved in the checking, goods were being carried against incorrect, false and forged documents. In the circumstances, a notice came to be issued to the respondent-assessee as to why penalty under Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1994') should not be levied. The respondent-assessee filed reply to the notice. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 25.04.2005, proceeded to visit the respondent-assessee with penalty of Rs.84,270/-. An appeal by the respondent-assessee to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) against the order dated 25.04.2005 entailed the order of penalty being set aside. The appeal was allowed vide order dated 31.12.2005. The petitioner-Department's second appeal to the Rajasthan Tax Board against the order dated 31.12.2005 came to be dismissed vide order dated 11.05.2010.

(3.) I have perused the impugned order dated 11.05.2010, passed by the Tax Board, Ajmer. Therefrom it is evident that the Tax Board has come to the conclusion that the order of penalty dated 25.04.2005, passed by the Assessing Officer was in contravention of the principles of natural justice. The assessing Officer had recorded the statement of the purchaser of the goods in the absence of the respondent-assessee and did not allow any opportunity of cross-examination to the respondent-assessee, but also did not conduct the requisite inquiry with regard to the goods in transit by an inspection and verification of the books of accounts kept in the regular course of business by the respondent-assessee as also the purchaser. In these circumstances, the Tax Board concurred with the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), the appellate authority, that the order of penalty dated 25.04.2005 deserved to be set aside.