TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (1) TMI 1206
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....finding the respondent-assessee in breach of Section 78(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1994') as also Rule 53 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1995 (hereinafter 'the Rules of 1995') read with notification No.1174:F.4(1) FD/Tax Div./2000-298 dated 30.03.2000 and visiting the respondent-assessee with a penalty of Rs. 15,546/- under Section 78(5) of the Act of 1994. The facts of the case are that on 22.03.2001, vehicle No.RJ-14/G8620 was intercepted and checked by the Commercial Taxes Department at the Chief Post Shahjahanpur in District Alwar in the State of Rajasthan. The vehicle was found loaded with household goods as also plastic sheets consigned to the respondent-assessee. On being as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uty Commissioner (Appeals). Vide order dated 13.08.2004, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of penalty dated 26.03.2001 primarily on the ground that prior to 22.03.2002 penalty could only be visited upon the person in-charge of the goods at the time of the transit. According to the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) as the respondent-assessee was not the person in-charge of the goods at the time of transit and at the time of checking by the assessing officer, the penalty under Section 78(5) of the Act of 1994 had wrongly been levied on it by the assessing authority. The order dated 26.03.2001 passed by the assessing authority was therefore set aside. Aggrieved the Revenue Department approached the Rajasthan Tax Board against t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been negated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. Bajaj Electricals Limited [(2009) 1 SCC 308]. She submits that the Hon'ble Supreme court in the aforesaid case has held that even prior to the amendment of Section 78 (5) of the Act of 1995 on 22.03.2002, penalty for goods in transit found noncompliant with Section 78(2) of the Act of 1994 and Rule 53 of the Rule of 1995 could be visited upon the owner of the goods in view of the fact that notification dated 22.03.2002 was a clarificatory notification and was thus operative retrospectively. It is submitted that further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Guljag Industries Vs. Commercial Taxes Officer [(2007) 7 SCC 269] has held t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts which were to be used in the production of plastic goods. The sequitur of the counsel's argument therefore is that consequently the penalty levied upon the respondent-assessee were mis-directed and without statutory foundation. He submits that issue of PVC sheets imported by the respondent-assessee in the State of Rajasthan being exempted from the requirement of accompaniment by a requisite statutory declaration form during transit was set up before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) as also the Tax Board, but was not considered as the assessee's appeal was allowed merely on holding that amendment to Section 78(5) of the Act of 1994 brought about on 22.03.2002, including therein owner of the goods, was prospective and not retrospe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the stage of the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and before the Tax Board overlooking the admission of statutory contravention by the respondent-assessee before the assessing authority and even expressing readiness to pay the penalty leviable for reason of the goods in transit being not accompanied by the requisite statutory declaration form ST18A. Further in my considered opinion, even otherwise entry 39 in the notification dated 30.03.2000 does not exclude plastic goods used as raw material for production of plastic goods or otherwise, but only PVC granules when used as raw material for production of plastic goods. It would be in oddity if plastic goods used as raw material for production of further the plastic goods would....