2016 (10) TMI 12

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....: Meenal Ghiya For the Respondent : None ORDER 1. Instant petition at the instance of Revenue is directed against the order dated 06.09.2007 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board dismissing the appeal of the Revenue 2. Brief facts as noticed are that a Vehicle Bearing No.HR-E-38-4314, which was carrying jaggary, was intercepted on 23.08.2001 where the driver/incharge produced Gate Pass No.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ended that the driver as well as the incharge could not produce relevant material and the Officer who intercepted the vehicle on further probe/examination noticed that the goods were of two parties from Delhi but both were not found registered with the Delhi Sales Tax Department and thus the goods were being carried when the intention of evasion of tax. She thus contended that the Tax Board had de....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Tax Board and relied upon the judgments rendered by this Court in the Case of A.C.T.O. Vs. White Marble House: [2006]148 STC 14 (Raj.); Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. M/s. Globe Transport Corporation (Sales Tax Revision No. 165/2011) was decided on 26 February, 2013; Commercial Taxes Officer (Anti Evasion -III), Hqr..,Jaipur Vs. Kartar Singh (Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 760/1999 and the orde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ice at least in the facts found was not required. The owner appeared from mandsore before the Officer in pursuance to the show cause notice and he contended that he had placed the order and he is registered with the Sales Tax Department and contended that he had placed the order with the Delhi parties. Once the owner appeared and contended that the goods were intended for MP, in my view, the order....