TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (3) TMI 629
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Bharatpur, (in short, "the DC (A)"), who had deleted the levy of penalty of Rs. 66,215 imposed by the learned Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer (in short, "the ACTO"), under section 78(5) of the said Act. The brief facts leading to this case are that on July 3, 2005 the goods, i.e., iron rods were being transmitted by a vehicle bearing No. RJ-02G-2468 from Bhiwadi to New Delhi. On checking made by the ACTO, Anti Evasion, of the Department, it was noticed that the driver of the vehicle was having Builty No. 229 dated July 2, 2005, Invoice No. 1321 dated July 2, 2005 but declaration form No. ST-18C was not available with the driver, the declaration form No. 0948588 was produced later on howev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... D. P. Metals [2001] 124 STC 611 (SC), is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and the instant case is covered by the said judgment of the apex court. Being dissatisfied with the order of the Tax Board, Ajmer, the petitioner-Department has preferred instant revision petition and the following questions of law were admitted for hearing on May 13, 2008: "(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 the section 78(5) of the Act, the in-charge of the check-post or the officer empowe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was quite justified in levying the penalty and the penalty was rightly imposed and it should be sustained. Mr. T. C. Jain, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent argued that in this case penalty under law is not leviable for the reason that section 78(1) prescribes levy of penalty, if there is tax evasion whereas when the goods are under stock transfer the provisions of section 78(1) are not applicable and the penalty cannot be imposed under section 78(5) of the Act. Alternatively, he argued that form No. 18-C was not readily available but immediately on demand after half an hour, it was produced by the respondent before the officer of the Department and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o levy or levy lesser amount of penalty. If by mistake some of the documents are not readily available at the time of checking, principles of natural justice may require some opportunity being given to produce the same. . ." After the judgment of honourable apex court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. D. P. Metals [2001] 124 STC 611 (SC), this court in several other cases, namely: (1) Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Bhiwadi v. Lloyd Electric and Engineering Ltd. [2011] 41 VST 25 (Raj), (2) S. B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 165 of 2011 (Commercial Taxes Officer v. Globe Transport Corporation [2014] 2 VST-OL 575 (Raj)), decided on February 26, 2013, (3) S. B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 239 of 2011 (Assistant Commercial Taxes ....