Penalty under Entry Tax law not justified where tax was paid and no legal error warranted revisional interference.

The Rajasthan HC upheld the Tax Board's refusal to sustain penalty under Section 12(5) of the Entry Tax Act, noting that the assessee was registered and had deposited the tax on imported diesel and LDO, with the challan produced before the Commercial Taxes Officer. On those facts, the Board applied the principle that penalty is not warranted where the tax liability has been discharged and the conduct does not justify penal action. The Court found no error of law or jurisdictional infirmity in that conclusion and declined revisional interference. The Revenue's revision was dismissed and the waiver of penalty was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional court should interfere with the Tax Board's order upholding waiver of penalty under Section 12(5) of the Entry Tax Act.

Analysis: The Tax Board recorded a finding that the assessee was registered under the Entry Tax Act and had deposited the tax amount against the imported diesel and LDO, with the challan produced before the Commercial Taxes Officer. On those facts, and by applying the principle that penalty is not warranted where the tax liability has been discharged and the conduct does not justify invocation of the penal provision, the Tax Board held that Section 12(5) could not be invoked. No error of law or jurisdictional infirmity was shown in that finding so as to justify interference in revisional jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The refusal to interfere with the waiver of penalty was justified and the revision failed.

Final Conclusion: The order of the Tax Board was sustained, and the Revenue's revision was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty under Section 12(5) is not to be invoked where the assessee has discharged the tax liability and the facts do not justify penal action, absent any error of law warranting revisional interference.

---