Court affirms deletion of penalty under Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. Omission deemed inadvertent.

The Court upheld the decision to delete the penalty under Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, amounting to Rs. 2,08,257. The dispute arose from a declaration form found partly blank during a vehicle check. The Court ruled in favor of the respondent-assessee, stating that the omission of the date column was inadvertent and did not warrant a penalty, as all other material particulars were duly filled. The Court found no evidence of forgery or fabrication and dismissed the revision petition, affirming the deletion of the penalty.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The issue involves the penalty under Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 for leaving a declaration form partly blank, leading to a dispute between the petitioner department and the respondent-assessee.

Summary:
The revision petition was filed by the petitioner department challenging the order of the Tax Board affirming the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) decision to delete the penalty under Section 78(5) of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,08,257. The dispute arose when a declaration form ST/18/A was found partly blank during a vehicle check, leading to the imposition of the penalty by the assessing officer.

The respondent-assessee contended that the omission of the date column was inadvertent and all other material particulars were duly filled, making the form complete. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tax Board both upheld this argument, stating that the form was complete as all relevant documents were produced and only one column was left blank.

The petitioner department relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, arguing that all material particulars must be filled and the omission of even one column constitutes a violation. However, the Court analyzed the judgment and concluded that in this case, filling in columns like quality, weight, description of goods, and value was crucial, and the omission of the date column did not warrant a penalty.

Both the Tax Board and the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) found the bills to be genuine and no evidence of forgery or fabrication was present. Therefore, the Court dismissed the revision petition, stating that no illegality or irregularity was committed in deleting the penalty.

In conclusion, the Court upheld the decision to delete the penalty under Section 78(5) of the Act, emphasizing that the omission of the date column did not render the declaration form incomplete in this particular case.

---