VISHNU TRADERS Vs. RAJASTHAN SALES TAX TRIBUNAL AJMER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LOOKING to the nature of the controversy involved in this case, we are of the opinion that the writ petition should be disposed of at the admission stage. The petitioner has challenged the order dated October 17, 1987, of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, made on the application filed by the petitioner seeking rectification of the order of the Tribunal, dated August 13, 1987. Under the aforesaid order the Tribunal had allowed the appeal of the State against the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals-I), quashing the penalty of Rs. 90,000 imposed under section 16 (1) (e) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (for short "the Act" ). The petitioner submitted its monthly returns for the assessment year 1984-85. In the monthly return for the month of July, 1984 (from July 1, 1984 to July 31, 1984) the petitioner had correctly shown the sale of taxable tins of edible oil but it was by accounting mistake that the sales of 3,730 taxable tins of edible oil was wrongly posted in the ledger as tax-paid. No sooner the petitioner came to know of this mistake and discovered it, he filed revised return for the month of July, 1984, on September 11, 1984, showing the correct position of the sales of taxable tins of edible oil. It was thereafter that some time on September 17, 1984, the non-petitioner No. 3, the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle 5, Jaipur, conducted the survey of the business premises of the petitioner and even at that time the position regarding the submission of the original return and the revised return was brought to his notice, still he was of the view that the submission of the original return was not proper and it amounted to attraction of the provisions of section 16 (1) (e) of the Act and he framed a provisional assessment order under section 7b of the Act for the period commencing from March 1, 1984 to September 17, 1984, creating a tax liability of Rs. 46,625 and further imposed a penalty amounting to Rs. 90,000 under section 16 (1) (e) of the Act vide its order dated December 31, 1984. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals-I), who came to a categorical finding that the entire purchase and sale are mentioned in the account books and it was simply on account of the erroneous posting of the entries, which was later on corrected by filing the revised returns even before the survey of the business premises made by the non-petitioner No. 3 on September 17, 1984. The appellate authority further observed that the petitioner has neither made any purchase or sale outside the account books nor he has intentionally submitted wrong returns and it was simply an error in the posting of entries. No offence under section 16 (1) (e) of the Act was made out. Consequently, the appeal was accepted and the imposing of the penalty was set aside. However, the levy of tax was maintained, though according to the petitioner he had deposited the said tax.

(2.) AGGRIEVED against the aforesaid order of the Deputy Commissioner, the Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal under its order dated August 13, 1987, allowed the appeal and restored the penalty imposed by the Commercial Taxes Officer. A rectification application was filed and that too was dismissed.