2013 (5) TMI 764 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court dismisses revision petition on penalty for blank declaration form under Rajasthan Sales Tax Act; exemption applies

Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Flying Squad-I, Ajmer Versus ICI. (India) Ltd.

Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Flying Squad-I, Ajmer Versus ICI. (India) Ltd. - [2013] 66 VST 9 (Raj) Issues:1. Imposition of penalty for carrying a blank declaration form under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994.2. Interpretation of the notification dated March 20, 2000 regarding the requirement to carry declaration form No. ST-18A.3. Applicability of previous judgments in similar cases to the present case.4. Consideration of facts and circumstances to determine the need for penalty imposition.Issue 1: Imposition of Penalty for Carrying a Blank Declaration Form:The revision petition filed by the petitioner-Department challenged the order of the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, which dismissed the appeal and sustained the deletion of penalty imposed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)-I, Jaipur. The petitioner argued that carrying an incomplete declaration form, ST-18A, warranted penalty imposition as per the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. Reference was made to the case of Guljag Industries v. Commercial Taxes Officer to support this contention. However, the respondent contended that the penalty was not justified as per the notification dated March 20, 2000, which exempted the carrying of such declaration forms for stock transfers before that date. The respondent relied on various judgments, including ACTO, FS-I, Jaipur v. Indian Oil Corp. Ltd., to argue against the penalty imposition.Issue 2: Interpretation of the Notification Dated March 20, 2000:The Court analyzed the notification issued by the Government of Rajasthan on March 20, 2000, which exempted the requirement of carrying declaration form ST-18A for stock transfers, branch transfers, depot transfers, or SOS transfers conducted before that date. Since the goods in question were transmitted in 1996, the Court held that the notification was applicable, regardless of the form being blank or filled. The Court noted that the Tax Board and the Deputy Commissioner had already considered and applied this notification in their decisions to delete the penalty.Issue 3: Applicability of Previous Judgments:Both parties cited previous judgments such as Guljag Industries v. Commercial Taxes Officer and ACTO, FS-I, Jaipur v. Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. to support their arguments. The Court examined these precedents and found that the facts and circumstances of the present case aligned with the principles established in those judgments. The Court emphasized that the previous decisions had already addressed and resolved similar issues regarding penalty imposition for carrying blank declaration forms in stock transfers.Issue 4: Consideration of Facts and Circumstances:After considering the contentions of both parties and reviewing the relevant legal provisions and judgments, the Court concluded that no question of law arose in the present case. The Court found no illegality, irregularity, or perversity in the decision of the Tax Board to delete the penalty. Given the established facts that the goods were transmitted before the notification date and the age of the case, the Court dismissed the revision petition. However, the Court granted the petitioner-Department the option to move an application if they found evidence that contradicted the stock transfer nature of the goods.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the legal issues involved and the Court's reasoning in resolving each matter.