2011 (11) TMI 577 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Revision petition challenging penalty under Rajasthan Sales Tax Act dismissed; court upholds Tax Board decision.

The revision petition challenging the penalty imposed under section 78(2)(b) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 was dismissed. The court upheld the ... Penalty under section 78(2)(b) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act,1994 - Held that:- revision petition is covered by the judgment (Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Zone IT, Anti Evasion, Alwar v. Shri Ram Tirthputra Shri Dudhnath [2010 (11) TMI 945 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT], wherein relying on judgment of the Division Bench in State of Rajasthan v. Tajiander Pal reported in [2002 (9) TMI 834 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] it was held that these provisions are not mandatory and are directory in nature. It was 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, the intention to evade tax cannot be inferred. - Decided against Revenue. Issues:Challenge to order upholding penalty under section 78(2)(b) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act,1994.Analysis:The case involved a challenge to an order passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board upholding a penalty imposed on the assessee under section 78(2)(b) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. The penalty was levied due to a discrepancy where documents found during a vehicle check did not contain the required seal indicating production at the check-post. The assessing authority imposed a penalty, which was later set aside by the appellate authority. The Tax Board upheld the appellate authority's decision, leading to the revision petition.The learned counsel for the petitioner acknowledged that the issue in this case was covered by a previous judgment in S.B. Sales Tax Revision No. 201 of 2010. The judgment highlighted that the provisions in question were not mandatory but directory in nature. It was emphasized that if all necessary documents were available during the check, the intention to evade tax could not be inferred. Both appellate authorities in the current case found no mens rea on the part of the assessee as all required documents were present, and taxes had been paid. Therefore, the intention to evade tax was deemed absent.In light of the precedents cited, including the judgments in State of Rajasthan v. Tajiander Pal and Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Shri Ram Tirthputra Shri Dudhnath, the judge found no fault in the order of the Rajasthan Tax Board. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, and the stay application was also rejected.