2017 (1) TMI 199 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

High Court upholds penalty for missing ST-18AA form, citing Guljag Industries case

T.S. Roadways Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director T.S. Gujral Versus CTO, Dungarpur

The High Court upheld the Tax Board's decision, affirming the penalty imposed on a transport business for not carrying the mandatory declaration form ... Declaration form ST-18AA - notified goods - sec.78(2) of the Act read with R.53 of the RST Rules - imposition of penalty u/s 78(5) of the Act - Held that: - subclause (b)(iii) of clause (1) of Rule 53, prescribes that it covers person other than a registered dealer as well and in the instant case, if the goods are of a value exceeding ₹ 10,000/- or more for use, consumption or disposal within the State, declaration form ST-18AA completely filled in all respect in ink, was required to be carried. In the instant case, the vehicle was intercepted on 4.3.2000. R.53(1)(b)(iii) is applicable in the instant case, where it was mandatory for a person carrying goods above ₹ 10,000/- irrespective of status who was required to carry declaration form ST- 18AA and, therefore, at the time when the vehicle was moving, the said provision was in force and was deleted on 24.4.2000, and in my view the finding of the AO as well as Tax Board, is just and proper. Once the above rule prescribes that declaration form was required to be carried, is sufficient to hold that the same being not carried, penalty was inevitable. Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. Issues Involved:1. Legality of the penalty imposed for not carrying declaration form ST-18AA.2. Applicability of the judgment in the case of Guljag Industries v. CTO.3. Validity of the rectification application filed by the AO.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the penalty imposed for not carrying declaration form ST-18AA:The petitioner, engaged in the transport business, was penalized for not carrying the mandatory declaration form ST-18AA while transporting 130 tyres and tubes. The vehicle was intercepted, and despite producing other documents like the bill, voucher, and transport challan, the absence of the declaration form led to the imposition of a penalty under section 78(5) of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) initially deleted the penalty, considering the absence of the form a technicality and referencing a prior decision that penalties before 22.3.2002 were not sustainable. However, the Tax Board reversed this decision, emphasizing that the declaration form was mandatory and upheld the penalty, referencing the Supreme Court judgment in Guljag Industries v. CTO.2. Applicability of the judgment in the case of Guljag Industries v. CTO:The Tax Board and the High Court both relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Guljag Industries v. CTO, which established that the non-production of a mandatory declaration form warranted a penalty. The High Court affirmed that the requirement to carry the declaration form ST-18AA was in force at the time of the incident and that the penalty was justified. The court noted that the rule mandating the declaration form was applicable to any person, including non-registered dealers, transporting goods valued over Rs. 10,000.3. Validity of the rectification application filed by the AO:The AO filed a rectification application citing the Supreme Court judgment in Guljag Industries, which was within the three-year period allowed for such applications. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the rectification application, but the Tax Board found that the application was valid and should have been considered in light of the Supreme Court's ruling. The High Court upheld this view, stating that the application was timely and properly addressed under section 37 of the Act, which allows rectification based on subsequent judgments of higher courts.Conclusion:The High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the Tax Board's order. The court concluded that the penalty for not carrying the declaration form ST-18AA was justified and mandatory under the prevailing rules. The rectification application filed by the AO was valid and timely, and the reliance on the Supreme Court's judgment in Guljag Industries was appropriate. The court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments and upheld the imposition of the penalty.