TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 256
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sh Kumar Sharma ORDER 1. The instant petition is directed against order dated 16.5.2007 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, in Appeal No.2687/2005/Jaipur, by which appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts noticed are that on 8.1.1999, vehicle bearing no.PB 14 G 1115 was intercepted at Shahjahanpur Check-post, wherein the driver/incharge produced bill no.2428 dt 7.1.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....before the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals), who took into consideration the fact that it is prior to 22.3.2002 and prior to that in view of the order of Larger Bench of the Tax Board in the case of ACTO, Flying Squad, Bharatpur v. M/s Bajrang Timber Mart (2006) 14 Tax Up-Date 10, the penalty was not imposable on owner. The DC(A) also held that the AO did not come to an apparent finding that the goods w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Bajrang Timber Mart (supra), which has been reversed by the apex court in the case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Bajaj Electricals Limited (2009) 1 SCC 308, and also contended that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the apex court in the case of Guljag Industries v. CTO (2007) 7 SCC 269, so also the Larger Bench decision of this court in the case of ACTO v. Indian Oil Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the mandate of R.53 of the Act to carry a declaration form filled-in, in all respect has not been complied with and, therefore, the AO was well justified in coming to the said conclusion of imposing the penalty. 8. In my view, the judgments of Guljag Industries v. CTO and ACTO v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (supra), are squarely applicable on the facts of instant case. 9. Even otherwise, the Tax....