ORIENTAL ENGINEERING CO JAIPUR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is proposed to dispose or the above two revision petitions by this common order as they are directed against the same order of Dy. Commissioner Excise and Taxation (Appeals) dated 5. 2. 1963, whereby the learned Dy. Commissioner rejected the appeal of M/s. Oriental Engineering Co. , Jaipur, against the assessment order of the Sales Tax Officer, Jaipur Circle 'b' dated 19. 11. 1962. By this order, the Sales Tax Officer had imposed a penalty of Rs. 4,000/- on the assessee for the misuse of 'c' forms.

(2.) THE assessee is a registered dealer and holds the registration certificate No. 283/jaipur/b, which was issued on 22. 7. 57 and the goods for the purpose of sub-secs. (1) and (3) of sec 8 of the Central Sales Tax Act specified therein are, agricultural machinery and parts. It was found that the dealer was using 'c' forms for goods other than 'agricultural machinery and parts', and, therefore, a notice was issued to him to show cause why action should not be taken against him under sec. 10-A sec. 10 (b) of the Central Sales Tax Act. In reply to this notice, a written statement supported by an affidavit of Shri B. N. Bhargava, partner of the firm was filed, wherein the following pleas were taken - (a) that they had been importing all types of machinery and parts under the bonafide belief and faith that these goods were specified in their Registration Certificate, (b) that they had been submitting their returns during all these years giving complete details of items for which 'c' forms were used, but no objection had ever been raised by the Deptt. , (c) that the officers of the deptt. had inspected their registers from time to time, but this irregularity had never been pointed out to them, (d) that assessments had been made for several years in the past but the mistakes had never come to notice, (e) that in their application for registration they had mentioned clearly 'machinery and parts', but somebody who was neither their representative nor in any way connected with the families of the partners had unauthorisedly added the word "agricultural" before the words "machinery and Parts" and as a result of this interpolation the registration certificate has been issued for "agricultural Machinery and Parts. "

(3.) AS regards the revision petition filed by the State, as will be obvious from the tenor of the argument advanced above, I do not agree with the assessing authority that the fact that the offence was not detected earlier by the supervising authorities should serve as a mitigating circumstance, justifying a lenient view.