TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (10) TMI 955
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. In response to show-cause notice, the dealer appeared and submitted his written reply contending that the goods in question were meant for jobwork and these goods were rejected, therefore, they were being sent back. Therefore, declaration form ST-18C was not annexed with other documents. The assessee annexed the declaration form ST-18C along with reply to show-cause notice. The learned assessing officer was of the view that form ST-18C was not accompanied with the goods carrying in the vehicle at the time of checking of the vehicle, therefore, there is violation of the mandatory provisions and consequently he levied penalty to the tune of Rs. 23,400 at the rate of 30 per cent on Rs. 78,000, i.e., va....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Act could not have been passed against owner of the goods before March 22, 2002, the date when section 78(5) was amended, whereas the honourable apex court in Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Bajaj Electricals Ltd. [2008] 18 VST 436 (SC); [2009] 1 SCC 308 has held that the expression "person in charge of the goods" used in section 78(5) includes the owner of the goods and amendment made in section 78(5) on March 22, 2002 was only clarificatory provision, therefore, the present case is fully covered by the judgment of the honourable apex court in the case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Bajaj Electricals Ltd. [2008] 18 VST 436 (SC); [2009] 1 SCC 308, therefore, the impugned order of the Tax Board be set aside. I have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the vehicle, therefore, there is breach of provisions of section 78(2) of the Act, consequently, penalty is leviable. The order of the assessing authority was set aside by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that, since declaration form ST-18C has been produced along with reply to showcause notice before the assessing authority, therefore, in view of the judgment of the honourable apex court and this court, the penalty is liable to be set aside and the same was set aside. It is relevant to mention that so far as the question whether order could have been passed against owner of the goods in place of incharge of the goods is concerned, the same was never agitated, discussed and decided by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e was fully covered by the decision of the apex court in D.P. Metals [2001] 124 STC 611 (SC); [2002] 1 SCC 279. The learned counsel for the Revenue does not dispute this factual aspect that declaration form ST-18C was produced by the assessee before the assessing authority along with the reply to show-cause notice. In these circumstances, the assessing officer was not right in levying penalty under section 78(5) of the Act. In view of above discussions, it is clear that although the order passed by the Tax Board is contrary to facts and law laid down by the honourable apex court in Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Bajaj Electricals Ltd. [2008] 18 VST 436 (SC); [2009] 1 SCC 308, but it is also clear that order of assessing authori....