TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (3) TMI 958
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r-assessing officer, has upheld the order dated May 10, 2005, passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) (for short, "the DC (A)") by which the DC (A) has deleted the penalty to the tune of Rs. 66,503 imposed upon the respondent-assessee by the petitioner-assessing officer under section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. 2. Brief facts, as emerging from the face of record, are that on June 5, 2003 the vehicle bearing No. HNG-0556 was intercepted near "Rathi Bas Road" check-post wherein aluminium scrap was loaded in the vehicle. On demand, the driver of the vehicle produced the bill according to which the goods were being transmitted from Delhi to Bhiwadi. The bill was issued by one M/s. Vinay Metal Industries, Delhi, in favour of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tisfied with deletion of the said penalty, the matter was carried in appeal before the Tax Board by the petitioner-assessing officer. The Tax Board upheld the findings of the DC (A) and affirmed the order vide order dated July 9, 2007. Hence this revision petition by the petitioner-assessing officer. 5. Ms. Tanvi Sahai on behalf of Mr. R. B. Mathur, counsel for the petitioner-assessing officer, submitted that it is a case where the penalty was rightly imposed by the petitioner-assessing officer. She submitted that how the goods can be transmitted without bill number and non-mentioning of the bill number on the bill shows that the bill itself was forged and fabricated and by no stretch of imagination, any authority could have accepted suc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is basis deleted the penalty. She submitted that it is merely mentioned by the DC (A) that by not mentioning bill number on the bill, it does show the intention of the respondent-assessee of evading the tax. She further submitted that there is no reason at all to come to such a conclusion and to delete the penalty. She further submitted that not only this, even the Tax Board was unjustified in mechanically following and affirming the order passed by the DC (A) when there was clear admission by the representative of the respondent-assessee. She further submitted that can anyone sell and purchase goods without bill number and if that be so, then sanctity would be lost of even producing the bill. She submitted that such a bill has no sanctity ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in[2013] 1 VST-OL 248 (Raj); Tax Up-Date Vol. 32 Part 5 March 1-15, 2012 Page 243. 7. In rejoinder, counsel for the petitioner submits that ample opportunity was granted to the respondent-assessee and the respondent did not avail of any opportunity and on the contrary, it agreed with imposition of penalty and she submitted that even the DC (A) was unjustified in admitting the appeal when, on the one hand, the penalty was agreed, then what was the occasion of filing of appeal. She submitted that even the DC (A) was not at all justified in admitting the appeal when it was an admitted case before the petitioner-assessing officer. Accordingly, she requested for reversal of the orders impugned passed by the authorities below. Both the counsel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessing officer was duty-bound to get the things verified from the seller but in a case like this when the representative of the respondent-assessee accepts the mistake and requests for closing the case, then according to me, nothing remained to be proved by the petitioner-assessing officer. After imposition of penalty, enquiry from seller loses significance and it could be significant had request was made by the respondent-assessee. I am also not satisfied with the way and manner in which the so-called photo copies were placed on record before the DC (A) and without any demur treated to be correct by him. On the other hand, the representative of the respondent-assessee showed inability to produce the books of accounts before the petitioner....