TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (7) TMI 658
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the order of the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) (for short, "the DC(A)") whereby the DC(A) deleted the penalty amounting to Rs. 1,04,317 imposed under section 78(5) of the Act by setting aside the order passed by the learned assessing officer (in short, "the AO"). The said appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law: "Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the submission of ST-18A declaration form filled in, in the ink, at the time of checking is mandatory under rule 53 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, read with section 78(2) of the RST Act, 1994 and whether incomplete submission of ST-18A declaration form attracts penalty on the price of the goods under section 78(4) of the RST Act, 1994?" The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....two columns remained to be filled in, as such these columns were immaterial. The respondent further pleaded that both the consignor as well as the consignee are reputed industries and will not indulge in such kind of activities particularly when all other columns were filled in and other relevant documents were found. However, the petitioner was not satisfied with the explanation so filed by the respondent observing that the declaration form ST-18A has its own sanctity and there were instances of re-using the same and since the respondent was not able to prove by acceptable evidence as to why the material columns could not be filled in, therefore by rejecting the explanation the penalty at 30 per cent. amounting to Rs. 1,04,317 was levied o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this factum has come to the notice otherwise the same form could have been re-used again and again. She further submitted that judgment of the honourable apex court in the case of Guljag Industries v. Commercial Taxes Officer [2007] 9 VST 1 (SC); [2007] 293 ITR 584 (SC); [2007] 18 Tax Update 321, is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case. It has been observed by the honourable apex court that carrying of incomplete form is not proper and penalty in a case like this could be levied she further submitted that several instances had been noticed by the Commercial Taxes Department that though the vehicles were carrying declaration form but they were blank or incomplete and were liable to be re-used therefore the notification dated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 18 Tax Update 321, relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable inasmuch as even the honourable apex court has observed that material facts, namely, quality, weight description, value of the goods and invoice number ought to have been mentioned whereas in the present case, all these have been found to be duly filled in. He submitted that only name and address of seller and transporter company was not filled otherwise everything is filled in. He drew attention of the court on the declaration form ST-18A and submitted that in form ST18A, if the value of the goods, invoice number challan and other particulars are filled in, then therefore by no stretch of imagination, the said form can be said to be re-usable. He submitted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....321 and State of Rajasthan v. D.P. Metals [2011] 124 STC 611 (SC). I have considered the submissions advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record as also the judgments relied upon by counsel for the parties. After having gone through the judgments of the honourable apex court as also the judgment of this court in Hari Om Company [2011] 30 Tax Update 285 and in the light of judgment of the apex court in the case of Guljag Industries [2007] 9 VST 1 (SC); [2007] 293 ITR 584 (SC); [2007] 18 Tax Update 321 which came to be decided later by the apex court and during the pendency of this revision petition before this court, therefore the law with regard to section 78(5) of the Act cannot be clearly spelt out du....