TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (8) TMI 867
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al No. 2542 of 2005 wherein, the Tax Board affirmed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Bharatpur, dated November 29, 2004, who had deleted the penalty under section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (for short, "the Act of 1994") amounting to Rs. 39,895. The revision petition was admitted on March 19, 2008 on the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether the impugned order of learned Tax Board ignoring the material evidence on record and considering the material which is not part of the record, vitiates the order under law? (ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and on proper interpretation of the provisions of section 78(5) of the Act, the in-charge of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....officer, found the columns blank, he was not satisfied as according to him, the declaration form should be properly filled in, as it was mandatory on the part of the respondent-assessee to fill in all the columns when the goods were carried. Therefore, as per the A.O. there was violation of provision of rule 54 of the Rules, and accordingly, he imposed the penalty holding that there was intention of tax evasion by the respondent-assessee. On appeal, by the respondent-assessee, the learned DC(A) deleted the penalty imposed by the learned assessing officer by accepting the appeal of the respondent-assessee. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned DC(A), the matter was further carried in appeal, by the petitioner-Departme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmitted that leaving one column blank may be on account of inadvertence but not filled in therefore it will fall within the material particulars as observed by the honourable apex court. She further submitted that mens rea is not at all to be looked into in the light of the aforesaid judgment as the honourable apex court has come to the conclusion that in case like this, mens rea is not at all relevant. Accordingly, the counsel pleaded for reversal of the said order. Despite notice one appeared on behalf of the respondent. I have gone through the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner-Department as also the judgment of the honourable apex court and the orders impugned and according to me, the judgment of the honourable ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioned about filling of value in the declaration as important so if all these are filled in the declaration form ST18C then according to me, all other particulars though may be important but will not be relevant for imposition of penalty in a case like this, in the present case, only invoice number and date was left to be filled in and according to me, in so far as the present case is concerned, it is distinguishable to the judgment rendered by the honourable apex court. When all other relevant columns, i.e., "material particulars" in the light of the judgment of the honourable apex court in the case of Guljag Industries [2007] 9 VST 1 (SC); [2007] 293 ITR 584 (SC); [2007] 7 SCC 269 were filled in therefore, in my view, in the present case,....