TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 819
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r by its order dated June 25, 2007 wherein the appeal of the respondent-Department was dismissed. Prior to that, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) also allowed the appeal of the petitioner-assessee. It is further submitted that the rectificatory order came to be passed by the Tax Board on April 29, 2011 and thereafter, final order was passed on June 17, 2011. He submitted that there is no justification for any rectificatory order or passing an order under section 37 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 as there is no mistake apparent on the face of record which could be rectified. According to him, it is a case of review which is impermissible under the Act. Only mistake apparent on the face of record could have been rectified. Therefore, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....revenue and to provide a remedy for such loss. Section 78(2) is a mandatory provision and goods put in movement under local sales, imports, exports or inter-State transactions have to be supported by requisite declaration. The honourable apex court reproduced rules 53 and 54 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1995 (for short, "the Rules") and the prescribed form of declaration in forms ST-18A and 18C with its contents to be filled in by consignor and consignee. It is noticed that the said judgment is basically confined to cases where blank/incomplete form ST-18A/18C had accompanied the goods in movement. It was found that in the appeal of Guljag Industries, lead case the goods in movement were carried with blank declaration form though dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that thereafter, this court, considering all the facts and circumstances and the judgments, has expressed that principles of natural justice have to be followed and accordingly this court in the case of Commercial Taxes Officer v. Jain Tubes reported in [2011] 30 Tax Update 125, ACTO v. Hariom Company reported in [2011] 30 Tax Update 285 and so also the judgment of this court passed in the case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Madhusudan Soap Udyog [2014] 69 VST 81 (Raj) (SB Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 151 of 2011, decided on May 9, 2013) has remanded the matter back to the assessing officer to provide an opportunity afresh and consequently, the respondent herein also deserves to be allowed opportunity of fresh hearing in the ....