2009 (4) TMI 894 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court upholds penalty under Rajasthan Sales Tax Act for highway construction materials

The court dismissed the revision petition challenging the penalty imposition under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. It held that the Tax Board and ... Sales tax revision - Held that:- While exercising revisional jurisdiction, scope is very limited and if any question of law arises, then, it must be formulated after mentioning the grounds. In a very casual manner, this revision petition has been filed under section 86 of the Act of 1994 having three paragraphs; and, in the fourth paragraph, questions of law have been formulated. It is very strange that in para 4, ten questions have been formulated. However, upon perusal of the whole of the revision petition including statement of facts, it is revealed that only ground is raised in para 4 of the statement of facts that the Tax Board has not appreciated the relevant provisions of law and material available on record in its proper light. For this assertion, no specific provision of law or material is pointed out by the petitioner nor any ground is raised except para 4 of the statement of fact. Therefore, no question of law arises for interference. Revision dismissed. Issues:Challenge to judgment and order passed by Tax Board and Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) regarding penalty imposition under Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994.Analysis:The case involved a sales tax revision petition filed by the Commercial Taxes Officer challenging a judgment and order passed by the Tax Board and Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) regarding penalty imposition under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. The Department contended that the Tax Board's decision was not based on sound reasons and failed to appreciate the relevant provisions of law and material on record. The Department argued that the respondent, being a works contractor, did not meet the pre-condition for availing benefits under the C form. The Department highlighted that the facts of the present case differed from the cases cited by the Tax Board and the apex court.Upon reviewing the revision petition and relevant judgments, the court noted that the scope of revision under section 86 of the Act is limited to questions of law. The court observed that the revision petition lacked specific grounds and material to support the claim that the Tax Board erred in its decision. The court found it peculiar that ten questions of law were formulated in the petition without substantial backing. However, upon examining the facts, it was evident that the goods purchased were used for constructing a national highway, justifying the Tax Board's decision based on precedents cited.In conclusion, the court dismissed the revision petition, stating that the Tax Board and Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) had correctly applied the law in the case. The court emphasized that the goods were purchased for the purpose of constructing a national highway, aligning with the legal requirements for availing benefits under the C form. As no error was found in the decisions of the lower authorities, the court found no grounds for interference, leading to the dismissal of the revision petition.