2013 (5) TMI 287 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

High Court affirms penalty deletion under Rajasthan Sales Tax Act; exemption applies.

The Rajasthan High Court upheld the deletion of the penalty imposed under Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, amounting to Rs.1,95,760. The ... Blank declaration form No. ST-18A - as per the dept. since the goods were in the category of 'Notified Goods', therefore, carrying of blank declaration form was unjustified - Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the penalty imposed under Section 78(5) - Held that:- It is an admitted fact that the goods were transmitted to its branch at Jaipur and the transaction in question is prior to 20th March, 2000, therefore, Notification issued by the Government of Rajasthan, bearing No./F.4(1)FD/Tax/Div/2000-314 dated 20.3.2000 is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, when there was no requirement of carrying such declaration form No. ST-18A in the case of stock transfer, branch transfer/depot transfer and SOS transfer then whether it was blank or filled looses significance. In view of the above discussions no question of law arises and no illegality, irregularity or perversity is made out in the judgment of the Tax Board, as such, no interference is called for by this Court in this revision petition and the same is accordingly rejected. The stay application stands rejected. All Corrections made in the Judgment/Order have been incorporated in the Judgment and Order being emailed. Issues:- Penalty imposed under Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 for carrying a blank declaration form No. ST-18A during the transmission of goods.- Interpretation of the Notification dated 20.3.2000 exempting the requirement of carrying declaration form No. ST-18A for stock transfer, branch transfer, depot transfer, or SOS transfer before 20th March 2000.Analysis:The revision petition before the Rajasthan High Court involved a challenge to the order of the Rajasthan Tax Board, which had deleted the penalty imposed under Section 78(5) of the Act amounting to Rs.1,95,760. The petitioner department contended that the carrying of a blank declaration form No. ST-18A during the transmission of goods was unjustified and penalty was rightly imposed. The respondent, an Oil Company, argued that the goods were transmitted before 20th March 2000 and as per the Notification dated 20.3.2000, there was no requirement to carry the declaration form in such cases. The respondent relied on past judgments and notifications to support their stance.The petitioner department highlighted the importance of the declaration form No. ST-18A and argued that its blank presence warranted the penalty. They referenced a Supreme Court case to support their argument. On the other hand, the respondent emphasized the applicability of the Notification dated 20.3.2000, which exempted the need for the declaration form before 20th March 2000 in certain transfer scenarios. The respondent cited relevant judgments and notifications to strengthen their position.The High Court analyzed the contentions of both parties and examined the material on record. The Court noted that the authorities had not considered the Notification issued by the Government of Rajasthan, but the petitioner had admitted the nature of the transfer in the revision petition itself. The Court found that the Notification exempting the requirement of the declaration form was applicable to the case, given the date of the transaction and the type of transfer involved. Therefore, the Court held that no useful purpose would be served by remitting the matter back to the lower authorities.Ultimately, the High Court concluded that the issue was fully covered by past judgments and the Notification, and no question of law arose. The Court found no illegality, irregularity, or perversity in the decision of the Tax Board. Consequently, the revision petition was rejected, and the stay application was also rejected. The Court upheld the deletion of the penalty by the Tax Board based on the considerations discussed in the judgment.