2015 (9) TMI 1510 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Tax Board decision upheld in VAT penalty case emphasizing procedural compliance

The Court upheld the Tax Board's decision in a case involving a challenge to an order under Sec. 84 of the Rajasthan VAT Act concerning the imposition of ... Imposition of penalty u/s 78(5) - form ST-18-A - form ST-18-A was filled in with three inks and column 3 was left blank - intent to evade tax - Held that: - only one column in the earlier declaration form ST-18A was found to be not written which was not a material particular in the light of the judgment rendered in the case of Guljag Industries [2007 (8) TMI 344 - SUPREME Court]. It is also an admitted fact and as observed by the AO itself that fresh declaration form duly filled in was submitted by the assessee on a show cause notice by the AO and which has been found to be proper, When the goods started from Kolkata, the declaration form ST-18A was valid and in force, however, when the goods reached the territory of State of Rajasthan, at the time of interception, the validity of the certificate had expired a day earlier but in my view, it would be too technical to hold it otherwise because when the goods left Kolkata, the certificate was very much valid, effective and in force; thus no fault can be found of the respondent in this regard if the form expired during the intervening period. Penalty set aside - petition dismissed- decided against petitioner-Revenue. Issues:Challenge to order under Sec. 84 of Rajasthan VAT Act - Assessment Year 2003-04 - Imposition of penalty under Sec. 78(5) - Validity of declaration form ST-18A - Discrepancies in declaration form - Upholding of order by Tax Board.Analysis:The petitioner-Revenue filed a Sales Tax Revision Petition under Sec. 84 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003, challenging the order passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, related to Assessment Year 2003-04. The matter pertained to the imposition of a penalty under Sec. 78(5) concerning discrepancies in the declaration form ST-18A during the transportation of goods by a driver intercepted at a check post. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal against the penalty, which was further appealed by the Revenue before the Tax Board.The Tax Board, considering relevant legal precedents, upheld the order of the DC (A) based on the submission of a new declaration form immediately upon demand. The petitioner contended that material discrepancies were observed in the declaration form, including the use of different inks and missing particulars, arguing that the Tax Board's decision was flawed. However, the Court found the Tax Board's decision justified, emphasizing that the submission of a duly filled fresh declaration form upon notice was proper and in compliance with legal requirements.The Court cited judgments, including the case of State of Rajasthan and another Vs. M/s. D.P. Metals, to support the principle that the submission of necessary documents upon demand is crucial to negate any guilty intent. Additionally, the Court referenced a decision in the case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., reinforcing the importance of complying with procedural requirements during tax assessments.Regarding the validity of the declaration form ST-18A, the Court noted that although the form had expired by the time of interception in Rajasthan, it was valid when the goods commenced their journey from Kolkata. The Court deemed it too technical to fault the respondent for the expired form upon entry into Rajasthan, emphasizing the validity of the form at the origin of the journey.In conclusion, the Court dismissed the Sales Tax Revision Petition, ruling that no legal question arose from the Tax Board's order as it was based on factual findings supported by evidence. The decision highlighted the importance of complying with procedural requirements and submitting necessary documents promptly during tax assessments to avoid penalties.