2014 (4) TMI 916

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppeal No.665/2006, whereby it rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner-department by upholding the order passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes Department, Bharatpur, ( in short 'The DC(A), dated 11.5.2005 who had quashed and set-aside the order of penalty passed by the learned ACTO (FS), (In short 'The ACTO') amounting to Rs. 30,290/- under Section 78(5) of the Act. 2. The revision petition was admitted by this Court on 12.5.2008 and following substantial questions of law were framed:- (i) Whether the impugned orders of learned Tax Board ignoring the material, evidence on record and considering the material which is not part of the record, vitiates the order under law ? (ii) Whether in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....evasion and imposed penalty as aforesaid under Section 78(5) of the Act. 4. Dis-satisfied with the order passed by the ACTO (FS), the respondent-assessee, filed an appeal before the DC(A), Bharatpur, who after going through the material on record as well as the order passed by the ACTO (FS), deleted the amount of penalty by accepting the appeal only on the basis that there was no intention of tax evasion of the respondent-assessee, following the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of State of Rajasthan and Another Vs. DP Metals (2002) 1 SCC 279. Against the order of learned DC(A), the petitioner-department, filed appeal before the Tax Board, who also upheld the order passed by the DC(A). 5. Hence, this revision petition....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on which came to be issued by the Government of Rajassthan on 4.12.2000 and the goods were being transmitted on 5.1.2001 thereby only one month had passed when the Notification came into force. He further submits that all the relevant documents were available at the time of checking and merely because of non-availability of declaration form, the ACTO imposed the penalty holding that there was intention of tax evasion, when it cannot be said to be a case of evasion of tax and both the lower appellate authorities have rightly deleted the penalty imposed against the respondent-assessee. Accordingly, he prays, that the order passed by the Tax Board, deserves to be upheld. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for....