2015 (10) TMI 219

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 3,85,190/- as penalty under section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (herein after to be referred '1994 Act'). 2. The facts of the case are that ACTO Flying Squad Nimbahera intercepted truck No. HR-46/3642 on 1-8-2001 at Nimbahera in Chittorgarh District, Rajasthan on its way from Aurangabad to Jaipur wherein 174 colour televisions were being transported to the petitioner's branch office at Jaipur. On checking of the documents required to accompany the goods in transit under Section 78(2) of the 1994 Act, it was found that though the goods in issue were accompanied by a challan invoice issued on 29-7-2001 valued at Rs. 12,83,939/-, loading slip No. 2531 dated 28-7-2001 and GR No. 358 dated 30-7-2001, the declaratio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sing Officer held the company liable and visited it with penalty of Rs. 3,85,190/- under Section 78(5) of the 1994 Act. The order passed by the assessing officer was sustained both by the appellate authority as also the tax Board. Hence this revision petition. 3. Mr. Sanjay Verma, officer of the petitioner company appearing on its behalf, owing to Advocate's strike submits that the judgment of the assessing officer upheld by the appellate authority and the Tax Board is contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. D.P. Metals: (2002) 1 SCC 279], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if by mistake some of the documents required under Section 78(2) of the 1994 Act are not ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the Assessing Officer arbitrarily accepting the version of the driver of the truck/transporter without any opportunity of their cross examination or an enquiry in this regard. He further submits that in any event a reading of the judgment in D.P. Metals (supra) would indicate that the cause of the error where requisite documents were not found in the first instance accompanying the goods in transit is not relevant and if any document including the declaration form ST-18-A was supplied with the reply to show cause notice, penalty under Section 78(5) of the 1994 Act cannot be levied. The representative of the petitioner company then pointed out that it is not in dispute that goods in transit were in the course of branch transfer without any....