TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (6) TMI 111
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....270 carrying semi-refined paraffin wax. The consignee was M/s.Sunrise International Jaipur. But the driver of the truck informed him that the goods were meant to be unloaded at A-17, Jhilmil Colony, Industrial Area Delhi where a firm by the name of M/s. Tara Chand & Sons was carrying on business. He passed an order on July 30, 2002 releasing the truck after levying tax in sum of Rs. 8,571/- and penalty in sum of Rs. 21,429/-. It was alleged in the charge memo that as per the 4th Schedule to the Delhi Sales Tax Rules, wax, except petroleum wax used for manufacturing candles, was required to be taxed at the rate of 20% of the value of the goods. The relevant provisions of the Delhi Sales Tax Act 1975 empowered him to levy penalty up to 2.5 ti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were meant to be un-loaded at the premises of M/s. Tara Chand & Sons, A-17, Jhilmil Colony, Industrial Area, Delhi. Shri H.K.Bharti, STO issued orders dated 30.7.2002 for release of the said truck imposing Rs. 30,000/- as tax and penalty (Rs. 8571/- as tax and Rs. 21,429/- as penalty). As per the 4th Schedule of Delhi Sales Tax Rules, was (except petroleum wax used for manufacturing candles) is required to be taxed @ 20%. In such cases, as per the provisions of Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975 the penalty is also to be imposed @ 2.5 times of the normal rate of tax. Since the goods were intended from sale in Delhi as is proved from the fact that these were unloaded at Delhi and not for Jaipur and the same were impounded without bill/challan/G.R.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 21,429/- as penalty. He has blithely attempted to explain this anomaly by stating that it was just a clerical omission not in conformity with the law. This explanation is not acceptable. b) The C.O. has himself admitted that the goods (paraffin was) were meant for the manufacture of candles and hence taxable @12% whereas in the break-up, referred to in subpara (a) above, he has levied tax of Rs. 8571/- which comes to about 3.75% of the value of goods. The C.O. has also not been able to show as to how he presumed that the paraffin wax seized was meant for the manufacture of candles. c) The C.O. in his defense has attempted to seek cover of Circular No.F.3/CST/L&J/Cir.-STAT/2002-03/1243-1392 dated 28/3/2003 the contents of which cannot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee/party. 7. We need not note the plethora of decisions which hold that pertaining to quasi-judicial adjudications, disciplinary proceedings for wrong decisions cannot be initiated unless there is a charge of mala fide or an oblique motive and the same is made good. 8. Indeed, on the point of law neither counsel was at variance. 9. In the instant case there is no charge of any oblique motive against the petitioner. 10. But, in matters pertaining to receiving illegal gratifications or showing undue favour to an assessee, it would be virtually impossible for the department to prove the same. 11. From the Statement of Imputation annexed with the chargesheet what emerges is not that while exercising his quasi-judicial ....