VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. ASSTT. COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A challenge has been made to the order dated 13 -7 -2012, passed by Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (hereinafter 'the Board'), sustaining the order dated 20 -10 -2009 passed by Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the order dated 17 -8 -2001 visiting the petitioner company with liability in a sum of Rs. 3,85,190/ - as penalty under section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (herein after to be referred '1994 Act').

(2.) THE facts of the case are that ACTO Flying Squad Nimbahera intercepted truck No. HR -46/3642 on 1 -8 -2001 at Nimbahera in Chittorgarh District, Rajasthan on its way from Aurangabad to Jaipur wherein 174 colour televisions were being transported to the petitioner's branch office at Jaipur. On checking of the documents required to accompany the goods in transit under Section 78(2) of the 1994 Act, it was found that though the goods in issue were accompanied by a challan invoice issued on 29 -7 -2001 valued at Rs. 12,83,939/ -, loading slip No. 2531 dated 28 -7 -2001 and GR No. 358 dated 30 -7 -2001, the declaration form ST18A was found missing. The truck driver in his statement before the Assessing Officer apparently stated that he had not received form ST -18 -A when the goods were despatched from Aurangabad. In the circumstances, a show cause notice was issued to petitioner company prima facie finding a contravention of Section 78(2) of the 1994 Act read with Rule 53(1) (a)(ii) of the Rules. Reply to notice along with declaration form ST -18 -A bearing No. 22164/16 was filed by the petitioner company. It was also stated in the alternative that the goods were under branch transfer from the petitioner company's factory to its branch office at Jaipur and hence in any event the declaration form ST -18 -A was not required to accompany the goods in transit in any way as in the context of transaction no evasion of tax was conceivable. It was prayed that in the circumstances show cause notice for levy of penalty be dropped. The assessing officer however concluded that from the statement of the driver of the truck No. HR -46/3642 as also the transport company's letter it was apparent that the petitioner company had not at all handed over the declaration form ST -18 -A to the transporter at Aurangabad and its defence that form ST -18 -A in fact had been submitted but accidentally left by the driver was false. Holding that submission of declaration form ST -18 -A with the reply to the show cause notice by the petitioner company was only a cover up of the company's intent to evade tax, the Assessing Officer held the company liable and visited it with penalty of Rs. 3,85,190/ - under Section 78(5) of the 1994 Act. The order passed by the assessing officer was sustained both by the appellate authority as also the tax Board. Hence this revision petition.

(3.) HEARD . Considered.