COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER Vs. NAKODA GRANITE INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for both the parties.

(2.) THIS revision petition was filed against the order passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board on 14. 9. 98 in the matter of C. T. O. Jalore vs. M/s. Nakoda Granite Industries, Jalore. On 23. 06. 1994 inspection was conducted at the premises of M/s. Choudhary Transport Company, Jalore at which 105 packets containing the granite tiles were found without bill, bilty and other documents. On enquiry it was revealed by the Manager, Transport Company that though goods have been brought from the godown of the respondent firm those goods were not put in transit because necessary documents have not been received by him. A notice was served on the consignor-respondent as well as on the Transport Company. The respondent produced the bill dated 21. 6. 94 in favour of the consignee at Bombay. It was explained by Bhawani Singh of M/s. Nakoda Granite Industries that soon after he made the bill he had to leave for Jodhpur and the bill remained in the pocket of his Coat and by mistake could not be delivered to the Transporters simultaneously. He also explained that after delivery of the goods to the transporters he had instructed the transporter to urgently carry the goods. Since requisite documents could not be delivered to him and in the absence of the requisite papers he did not transport the goods. On his return from Jodhpur he found that order has been cancelled and goods were not now required to be carried to the consignee. Meanwhile goods were also taken in custody by the Assessing Officer. He requested for the release of goods to him. THIS explanation was not accepted by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Jalore Circle. He levied penalty of Rs. 17,011/-u/s. 22a (7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act.

(3.) IT was further held after refering to the provision of the Act that: " these provisions are indicative of the fact that penalty is to be levied where the breach committed or the default for which penalty is levied, is related and has a rationalnexus with the purpose for which the provisions of Section 22a of the Act have been enacted, namely, that the breach must be related to envasion or avoidance of tax. In my opinion mens rea or deliberate defiance of the provision with intention to evade or avoid liability of tax that may arise as a result of the transaction must be a necessary ingredient before penalty could be levied. "