Dismissed

A C T O Ward II Kota v. M/S Steel Authority of India

Rajasthan HC23 Jan 2015STR/289/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a sales tax revision petition seeking recovery of penalty. The court held that under a Notification dated 30.3.2000, carrying declaration Form ST 18-A was not mandatory for stock/branch transfers before that date, rendering the penalty unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

The Sales Tax Revision Petition was dismissed; no penalty was leviable on the assessed goods.

A C T O Ward II Kota Vs M/S Steel Authority of India — Rajasthan HC (2015) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR.

¶4

SB Sales Tax Revision Petition No.289/2011 Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Ward-II Anti Evasion, Kota vs

¶5

M/s Steel Authority of India, Kota

¶6

Date of Order : 23.1.2015

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. K. RANKA

¶8

Ms. Tanvi Sahai, for Mr. RB Mathur, for the petitioner-department. None for the assessee-respondent

¶9

1.Instant Sales Tax Revision Petition, under section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act,1994 (in short 'the Act of 1994')has been filed by the petitioner-department, assailing the order passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (in short 'the Tax Board') dated 26.11.2002 in Appeal No.919/1998/Kota, whereby it allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.

¶10

2.The brief facts leading to this case are that on interception of the vehicle on 21/2/1998 bearing No. RJ 27 G 2780 it was noticed that it was carrying 16.440 metric ton iron, from Bombay to Kota on stock transfer. It was noticed that it did not have proper declaration Form ST 18-A and on checking it was found incomplete in all respect. The goods were being transmitted on 21.2.1998. In view of the above fact, that declaration Form ST

¶11

¶12

18-A was incomplete,the Assessing Officer (in short 'AO') was not satisfied with the explanation so offered and accordingly imposed penalty @ 20% of the total value of the goods amounting to Rs.62,662/-.

¶13

3.Dissatisfied with the imposition of penalty, the matter was carried before Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) ( in short “DC(A)”). After perusing Form and considering the judgment passed by the various courts came to the conclusion that the penalty levied was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶14

4.Dissatisfied with the order of DC(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tax Board, who came to the conclusion that in so far as assessee is concerned, there was a mistake committed on the part of clerical staff. It was also observed that other particulars namely bill, builty, and other material were found in order. However, in the light of the above facts, the Tax Board came to the conclusion that there was reasonable justification pleaded, it was a clerical error and thus, there was no occasion for imposition of penalty under Section 78(5) of the Act of 1994 and accepted the appeal of the assessee.

¶15

5.This revision petition has been admitted by this court.

¶16

6.Ms. Tanvi Sahai, counsel for the petitioner

¶17

¶18

contends that in the light of the judgment in the case of M/s Guljag Industries Vs. Commercial Taxes Officer (2007)7 SCC 269, the Apex Court has come to the conclusion that declaration form No. ST-18-A must be carried with the goods and it should be filled in all respect and compliance of the Act has to be fulfilled hence penalty is justified. She supported the order of the AO as well as DC(A) and further contended that the Form was incomplete and the Form ought to have been complete in all respect and once there was deficiency/incomplete Form under, Section 78 (5) of the Act of 1994 the penalty was rightly imposable.

¶19

7.I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the revenue and have gone through the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the Revenue.

¶20

8.In my view, there is no dispute that the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s Guljag Industries (supra) does support the contention of the revenue and in my view as well, if the declaration Form ST 18-A is incomplete or material particulars are lacking then the penalty is required to be imposed but in the instant case, the penalty is not leviable on an entirely different fact, noticed by this court, though the matter deserved to be

¶21

¶22

restored for further verification and finding of fact but then it is a matter pertaining to the year 1998, it was thought prudent to decide the issue as facts are verifiable on perusal of the orders and the appeal can be decided.

¶23

It is an admitted fact that the crucial date is 21.2.1998 on which date the goods were being carried by the assessee from the Bombay Office to its Kota office and admittedly on stock/branch transfer, therefore the judgment relied upon by the revenue in the present case may not hold good and inapplicable on these facts found. It is an admitted position that as per the Notification issued by the Government of Rajasthan, bearing No./F.4 (1) FD/Tax/Div/2000-314 dated 30.3.2000 there was no requirement to carry the declaration Form ST 18-A prior to 30.3.2000 in case where goods were being transmitted/carried on stock/branch transfer. This issue has been settled by this court in the case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Flying Squad-I, Ajmer Vs. I.C.I. (India) Ltd [2013] 66 VST 9 (Raj).

¶24

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that since the issue involved in the instant case has already been settled and decided in the Case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer

¶25

¶26

Vs.I.C.I. (India) Ltd. (supra), no penalty in law is leviable and penalty is not sustainable therefore, in the light of the aforesaid judgment, the instant revision petition is decided against the Revenue though on a different aspect and in favour of the assessee.

¶27

11.In view of the aforesaid, the Sales Tax Revision petition is dismissed.

¶28

All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being e-mailed.

¶29

Om prakash P.A.

A C T O Ward II Kota v. M/S Steel Authority of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A C T O Ward II Kota v. M/S Steel Authority of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Rajesh Investments Vs M/S Anil Trading Comp

Smt Vimla Devi Vs Ramavatar Meena

Man Singh and Another Vs Kailash and Others

Raghuveer Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

A C T O Vs M/S Gora Mal Hari Ram

A C T O Vs M/S Jatan Construction Pvt. Ltd.