TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 912
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 21, 2009 in Appeal No. 1142 of 2008, whereby it accepted the appeal filed by the petitioner-Department by upholding the order of imposition of penalty under section 76(6) of the VAT Act, passed by the learned assessing officer and reversed the order passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes Department, Bharatpur, (in short, "the DC(A)"), dated October 17, 2007 who had quashed and set aside the order of penalty passed by the learned ACTO (FS), (in short, "the ACTO"). The brief facts as emerging on the face of the record is that a vehicle bearing No. HR-12-GA-0425 was intercepted by the ACTO (FS), Alwar of the respondent-Department on Behror Tatarpur Road on March 27, 2007. In the said vehicle, the ACTO found ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....out two weeks was granted and depositing the amount of penalty then and there, the respondent-Department was having no option except to consider the reply and to impose the penalty. Accordingly, the penalty as aforesaid was imposed under section 76(6) being 30 per cent of the value of the goods at Rs. 92,670 by holding that there is violation of provisions of section 76(2)(a) of the VAT Act. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the ACTO (FS), the petitionerassessee, 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), vide order dated October 17, 2007 deleted penalty by accepting the contentions of the petitioner-appellant. Being aggrieved with the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at as to how, it has been observed that the goods were coming from Hisar to Kishangarhbas, Alwar when the bill was issued by the petitioner having its business at Kathuwas, Alwar for being transmitted to one Rajasthan Hardware Store, Kishangarhbas. He further submitted that the bill is quite genuine and contents of the bill could not have been doubted at all by the respondent-Department. Accordingly, merely on assumption or presumption no penalty could be levied. On the other hand, Mr. R.B. Mathur, assisted by Ms. Tanvi Sahai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Department, submitted that the ACTO as well as the Tax Board, is quite justified in imposing/sustaining the penalty and it is a clear-cut case where the entire evidence ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... production of books of accounts on a subsequent date on account of accountant not being in town requested rather insisted for passing an order and even conveyed to the ACTO that he is ready and willing to deposit the amount of penalty then and there though sufficient time was granted. He further submitted that had Bramh prakash been a transporter he would not have stated about deposit of penalty then and there, for a transporter cannot have capacity to deposit the penalty of such magnitude and that he was acting on behalf of/behest of the petitioner. He further submitted that it is a finding of fact and no question of law arises and therefore, the instant revision petition should be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts of the case submitted by the petitioner in the present revision petition proves contrary to what has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner. For ready reference para 5 of the brief facts of the instant revision petition is quoted hereunder: "That in response to show-cause notice the petitioner's representative Shri Brahma Prakash Agarwal appeared and filed reply. It was further explained that since Munim of the firm is out of station, the books of account could not be produced but issue of invoice, etc., was admitted and fact was owned by the petitioner." It is clear even by the brief facts as given by the petitioner that Brahma Prakash has been claimed by the petitioner himself, in the revision petition as "petitio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om their factory to Kishangarhbas, on the contrary even the driver Deepak Kumar stated this fact before the ACTO that the vehicle was having "loha girders" which was loaded from the factory of Jindal Rolling Mills, Hissar at 4 p.m. and was going to Kishangarhbas from Hissar. In the light of these facts, no clarification or further claim was or even reply was filed by the petitioner-assessee before none of the authorities denying these facts. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitionerassessee, according to me are distinguishable inasmuch as the case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Kishori Shyam Brijesh Kumar [1994] 93 STC 213 (Raj). In that case, this court came to the conclusion that merely on the basis ....