Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether penalty under Section 61 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was rightly leviable where Form-C submitted by the assessee was found to be fake and forged and the Tax Board had set aside the penalty despite sustaining the tax and interest demand.
Analysis: Section 61 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 permits penalty where a dealer conceals particulars, deliberately furnishes inaccurate particulars, conceals sale or purchase transactions, or otherwise evades tax. On the findings recorded by the authorities, the assessee failed to show bona fide reliance on genuine declaration forms, and the forms used were found to be fake and forged. In such circumstances, the case fell within active concealment and deliberate misinformation rather than a mere technical lapse. The court also applied the settled principle that penalty provisions in this context are civil in nature and mens rea is not an essential ingredient once the statutory contravention is established.
Conclusion: The penalty under Section 61 was validly imposed and the Tax Board was not justified in deleting it.
Final Conclusion: The revision petition succeeded and the penalty order of the assessing authority was restored.
Ratio Decidendi: Where fake or forged declaration forms are used to suppress transactions or furnish inaccurate particulars, penalty for tax evasion is attracted under the statute as a civil liability and proof of mens rea is not required.