Dismissed

A C T O Jaipur v. M/S Iswar General Store

Rajasthan HC15 Sept 2016STR/66/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revenue sought revision against Tax Board order deleting tax evasion penalty. Court found goods destination proven and disputed facts not confronted to respondent, dismissing petition.

What did the court decide?

The revision petition was dismissed as it was found to be devoid of merit.

What the court decided

A C T O Jaipur Vs M/S Iswar General Store — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

S.B. SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO. 66 of 2006

¶4

Asstt. Commercial Taxes Officer, A/E-Raj. Ward-I, Circle-II, Jaipur

¶5

...Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

M/s Ishwar General Store, Station Road, Mandsaur.

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

Date of Order : 15.09.2016

¶10

HON'BLE MR.JAINENDRA KUMAR RANKA,J.

¶11

Ms. Meenal Ghiya for the Petitioner Mr. Sarvesh Jain for the Respondent

¶12

ORDER

¶13

¶14

Instant petition at the instance of Revenue is directed against the order dated 10.5.2002 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board allowing the appeal of the assessee.

¶15

Brief facts as noticed are that a Vehicle Bearing Truck No. HR-38-2295 was intercepted on 22.11.1997 where the driver/incharge produced Challan No. 43277 dated 21.11.1995, Builty No. 615015 dated 21.11.1997, Bill No. 1471/21.11.1997 and 537/21.11.1997. In which attaches (suit cases) were found. It was claimed that the goods were being transported from Delhi to Mandsore (MP) and was only passing through the State of Rajasthan and no action was to be taken in the State of Rajasthan. However, the AO found from the computer that the Bills which were placed on record of the parties from whom the goods were transported, were not found registered with the Delhi Sales Tax Authority/Department and came to the conclusion

¶16

¶17

that the goods were being transported with the intention of evasion of tax and accordingly imposed penalty of Rs.30,000/-.

¶18

The assessee filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) assailing the penalty but the same stood dismissed upholding the order passed by the AO.

¶19

The assessee filed appeal before the Tax Board assailing the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and AO and the Tax Board, after analyzing the material on record, allowed the appeal and deleted the penalty. Hence the present petition has been filed by the Revenue assailing order of the Tax Board.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the driver as well as the incharge could not produce relevant material and the Officer who intercepted the vehicle on further probe/examination noticed that the goods were of two parties from Delhi but both were not found existent or registered with the Delhi Sales Tax Department and thus the goods were being carried with the intention of evasion of tax. She thus contended that the Tax Board had decided the matter in the summary manner and question of law does arise out of the order of the Tax Board and particularly when the Bills have been found to be forged and fabricated.

¶21

Per contra learned counsel for the respondent assessee contended that the goods were intended from Delhi to Mandsore (MP) and merely because the goods were passing through the State of Rajasthan,

¶22

¶23

the anti evasion officers had no occasion to even inspect or intercept the Vehicle. All documents relating to transportation of the goods clearly reveal that the destination of the goods was from Delhi to Mandsore (MP) and once it was proved that goods were transported from Delhi to Mandsore (MP), question of invoking provision of Section 78(5) does not arise and contended that the penalty has rightly been deleted by the Tax Board and relied upon the judgments rendered by this Court in the Case of A.C.T.O. Vs. White Marble House: [2006]148 STC 14 (Raj.); Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. M/s. Globe Transport Corporation (Sales Tax Revision No. 165/2011) ; Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Kartar Singh (Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 760/1999.

¶24

I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and have gone through the order impugned as well as other orders passed by authorities below and the judgments cited at the Bar.

¶25

There may be some discrepancy/deficiency in the Bills/Vouchers but the fact remains that the goods were being transported from Delhi to Mandsore (MP) and it was proved on the basis of the Bills and vouchers and Builty etc. which was produced by the incharge/driver of the Vehicle.

¶26

The finding by the AO that the Bills which were produced were of Delhi parties and that they were not found registered with the Delhi Sales Tax Department was not confronted with the respondent assessee and merely doubting without providing

¶27

¶28

material at least in the facts found, was not desirable. The owner appeared before the Officer in pursuance to the show cause notice and he contended that he had placed the order with regard to purchases with the Delhi parties. Once the owner appeared and contended that the goods were intended for MP, in my view, the order of the Tax Board is just and proper and I find no error, illegality or perversity in the order impugned so as to call for interference by this Court. 10. Consequently the revision petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed.

¶29

Monika Chugh/26

A C T O Jaipur v. M/S Iswar General Store

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A C T O Jaipur v. M/S Iswar General Store

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amitabh Bhargava Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Babu Lal BAIRWAandORS Vs State Medical and Healthors

Ram Kishan Vs State

Dev Sharma @ Pintu @ Devendra @ Daulatra Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Ramkishore Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Amrik Singh @ Sonu and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp