TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (4) TMI 883
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere intercepted and checked at Ratanpur on the Ahmedabad-Udaipur route by the petitioner-authority on January 4, 2000. The goods were notified goods, therefore, the same were required to be accompanied by declaration form ST-18A in respect of registered dealer and declaration form ST-18AA in respect of unregistered dealer and other individuals. Since the goods in transit brought by the respondent was not accompanied by declaration form ST-18AA, therefore, as per provisions of section 78(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter to be called, "the Act"), read with rule 53 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1995, notice was issued to show cause by the petitioner-authority in exercise of power conferred under section 78(5) of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titioner submits that the order of the Tax Board is erroneous because the Tax Board has not examined the matter in its entirety and objectivity. As per section 78(2) of the Act, the goods is required to be carried in the vehicle with record including challan, bilties, bill of sales or dispatch memo and prescribed declaration form in conformity with the provisions of section 78(2) of the Act. Obviously, the declaration form ST-18AA was not produced at the time of inspection, therefore, the penalty was inflicted after considering the reply of the respondent-dealer; but, the Tax Board seriously erred in holding that the liability of penalty for not carrying the declaration form cannot be fastened on the consignor because it is the responsibili....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the learned counsel for the petitioner that mens rea to evade tax liability on the part of the dealer is not an essential ingredient for constituting offence under section 78(5) of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner heavily relies upon the judgment in Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Bajaj Electricals Ltd. reported in [2008] 18 VST 436 (SC); [2009] 1 SCC 308 and contends that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the cited judgment, in which, the earlier judgment passed in State of Rajasthan v. D.P. Metals reported in [2001] 124 STC 611 (SC); [2002] 1 SCC 279 has been considered, therefore, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), so also, the learned Tax Board committed grave error of law while settin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore, both the orders impugned do not require any interference by this court and the order passed by both the authorities below may be upheld. I have perused the recent judgment of the honourable apex court in Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Bajaj Electricals Ltd. reported in [2008] 18 VST 436; [2009] 1 SCC 308, so also, judgments in State of Rajasthan v. D. P. Metals reported in [2001] 124 STC 611 (SC); [2007] 1 SCC 279 and Guljag Industries v. Commercial Taxes Officer [2007] 9 VST 1 (SC) [2007] 7 SCC 269. It is true that in the recent judgment in the case of Bajaj Electricals Ltd. [2008] 18 VST 436 (SC); [2009] 1 SCC 308, in para 9, it has been held that declaration form ST-18A or ST-18AA is to be produced at the time of checki....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r two circumstances. Firstly, if there was non-compliance of section 78(2)(a) of the said Act, viz., it was not carrying the documents mentioned in that clause; secondly, if false or forged documents are submitted, then, penalty under section 75 is leviable. After analysing the situation, the apex court held that in the case of submission of false or forged documents the authority is entitled to presume motive to mislead the authorities. However, in such cases that presumption was rebuttable by the assessee on producing the requisite documents referred to in section 78(2)(a). If, by mistake, some of the documents were not readily available, the principle of natural justice might require opportunity being given to produce the same; meanin....