2017 (1) TMI 201 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court reinstates penalty for non-production of declaration form ST-18A under RST Act, 1994

ACTO, Ward-II, Circle 'E', Jaipur Versus Kores India Limited

The court upheld the penalty imposed under Section 22(a)(7) of the RST Act, 1994 for non-production of declaration form ST-18A. Despite contradictions in ... Imposition of penalty u/s 22(a)(7) of the RST Act, 1994 - notified goods - declaration form ST-18A - Held that: - R.53 of the RST Act is quite clear and it envisages that even in a case of import from outside the State, declaration form ST- 18A is required to be produced and in the instant case admittedly the declaration form ST-18A was neither produced at the time of the vehicle being searched or even later-on, on a show cause notice. The judgment of Larger Bench of this court in the case of Indian Oil [2015 (11) TMI 1078 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] is squarely applicable to the facts of the case, where it was held that if the declaration form is not produced or not found in a case, it can safely be held that the goods were being transported with the intention of evasion of tax. Penalty sustains - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. Issues:1. Imposition of penalty under Section 22(a)(7) of the RST Act, 1994 for non-production of declaration form ST-18A.2. Interpretation of the requirement of declaration form ST-18A for goods transported from outside the State.3. Contradictions in statements regarding the delivery of goods to the office of the respondent.Analysis:1. The case involves the imposition of a penalty under Section 22(a)(7) of the RST Act, 1994 for the non-production of declaration form ST-18A. The Assessing Officer (AO) was not satisfied with the explanation offered regarding the delivery of goods from different places to the office of the respondent. The penalty was initially upheld by the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) but later deleted by the Tax Board.2. The main issue revolves around the interpretation of the requirement of declaration form ST-18A for goods transported from outside the State. The AO and DC(A) found that the goods were being sent to the respondent's office without a proper explanation, leading to the imposition of the penalty. The court analyzed the argument that since the goods were electronic goods and not notified under the Act, the declaration form was not mandatory. However, the court referred to R.53 of the RST Act, emphasizing the necessity of producing declaration form ST-18A even for goods imported from outside the State.3. The court noted contradictions in the statements regarding the delivery of goods to the respondent's office despite purchasers being located in different places. The respondent argued that since the goods were electronic goods and not notified, the declaration form was not required. However, the court disagreed, citing relevant judgments and statutory provisions to support the imposition of the penalty. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of the declaration form and quashed the decision of the Tax Board, upholding the penalty imposed by the AO.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the court's reasoning behind upholding the penalty for non-compliance with the declaration form requirement.