IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER S. B. Sales Tax Revision No. 191/2010 Commercial Taxes Officer, Alwar Versus Shri Rajesh. Date of Order: 24.11.2010 Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain,J. Mr. R.B. Mathur, for the petitioner. BY THE COURT:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Assessing officer vide its order dated 18.05.2004 levied penalty under Section 78(10-A) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1994’), which was set aside by Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) in an appeal filed by the assessee vide order dated 08.02.2006. Rajasthan Tax Board dismissed the appeal of the petitioner/department vide judgment dated 15.09.2009, which is under challenge in this revision petition preferred on behalf of the petitioner.
3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that although all the relevant documents including Form ST 18-A were available and produced for checking at the time of checking of the vehicle/goods, but since seal of check post of Commercial Taxes Department of the State of Rajasthan was not there on the documents, therefore, there was no illegality in levying the penalty by the assessing officer. He, therefore, contended that orders passed by both the appellate authorities may be set aside and order passed by the assessing officer may be restored.
4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of reasons assigned by both the appellate authorities for setting aside the penalty order passed by the assessing officer.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that all the required documents, as per provisions of Section 78(2)(b) of the Act of 1994, were available and produced at the time of checking of vehicle/goods and required tax had already been paid by the assessee. So far as seal of check post of the State of Rajasthan on the documents is concerned, the same is not a mandatory requirement, as per provisions of Section 78(2)(b) of the Act of 1994.
6. Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan & Another Vs. Tajiander Pal, reported in (2003) 6 Tax Update Part 3 Page No. 84 held that these provisions are not mandatory and are directory in nature. Division Bench of this Court further held that if all the requisite documents are available at the time of checking of vehicle/goods, then intention to evade tax cannot be inferred. Both the appellate authorities have recorded a concurrent finding that there was no mens-rea on the part of the assessee, as all the required documents were available and tax had already been paid by the assessee, therefore intention to evade tax cannot be inferred.
7. In these circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the concurrent finding recorded by both the appellate authorities so as to interfere with the same in this revision petition.
8. No question of law is involved in this revision petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.
(Narendra Kumar Jain),J.
Manoj,
Item No.12.