Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether penalty under section 78 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 was sustainable when the prescribed declaration form was not available at the time of interception and was produced only later.
Analysis: The goods in transit were notified goods and were required to be accompanied by the prescribed declaration form. At the time of checking, no declaration form ST-18AA was in existence in favour of the consignee, and the form was issued only after the date of interception. The Court relied on the principle that the declaration form must accompany the goods at the time of transit check, and held that the later production of the form could not cure the initial non-compliance. On these facts, the case was not one of mere omission capable of being explained by subsequent production; the goods had in fact been consigned without the required declaration form on the relevant date.
Conclusion: The penalty under section 78(5) was rightly imposed, and the order of the assessing authority was restored.
Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the appellate orders were set aside, and the penalty order passed by the assessing authority stood upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: Where notified goods are intercepted in transit without the prescribed declaration form in existence at the time of checking, subsequent issuance or production of that form does not negate liability under section 78 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994.