TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (1) TMI 199
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom M/s. Tyre India, Chemboor, Mumbai, for its own use. However, since these were notified goods, the officer was of the prima facie view that declaration form ST- 18AA was also mandatory to be carried along with the goods and the same being not found, in view of the provisions of sec.78(2) of the Act read with R.53 of the RST Rules, the same having been violated, a show cause notice was given. An explanation was offered contending that they have already produced bill, voucher, invoice, delivery challan etc., however, they are not in a position to produce declaration form ST- 18AA and they are ready to deposit the penalty, and the goods be released. Taking into consideration the explanation, the AO imposed penalty u/s 78(5) of the Act. 3. The matter was assailed before the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) who, however, taking into consideration that the goods were supported by bill, voucher, challan and other certificates, and non producing of declaration form was merely a technicality and also was of the view that since the penalty was prior to 22.3.2002, in view of the Larger Bench decision of Tax Board in the case of ACTO, Flying Squad, Bharatpur v. M/s Bajrang Timber Mart (2006) 14 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding of fact recorded by the Tax Board as well as the Assessing Officer that the assessee accepted that they did not carry the requisite declaration form and accepted for imposition of penalty. Learned counsel further contended that it may be that the assessee is not a registered dealer and even if the goods were being purchased and brought in the State of Rajasthan for own use, but was still required to carry declaration form ST-18AA. Learned counsel contended that it is not a case where the goods were intended for personal use, but it was for the purpose of business, and contended that the judgment of Guljag Industries (supra) so also Bajaj Electricals (supra), which have been considered by the Tax Board, are applicable on the facts of the instant case. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record and the case laws cited, and in my view the order of Tax Board is just and proper and is not required to be interfered with. 8. It would be appropriate to quote R.53 :- "Rule 53. Declaration form required to be carried with the goods in movement for imports within State.-- (1)(a) A registered dealer,-- (i) who imports any taxable g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion under sub-section (3) of section 78, who shall retain the original portions of the declaration form and return the duplicate portion after signature and marking seal in token of having verified it, to the person producing it, and such officer shall send the retained original portion of the declaration form to the assessing authority of the registered dealer or to the authority who issued the declaration form, in the case of dealer or other person other than registered dealer. (d) If the declaration form referred to in clause (a) or (b) in respect of the goods in movement has already been submitted to the incharge of the entry check-post or to the officer empowered under section 78, any person transporting the goods shall, on inspection by an officer empowered under section 78, at any subsequent place, produce the countersigned and sealed copy of the aforesaid declaration along with other documents specified in clause (a) of subsection (2) of section 78. Explanation.- For the purpose of this rule, "taxablegoods" means all goods, except the goods the sale or purchase of which by dealers is generally exempt from tax without any condition or on the sole condition that an exempt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... required to be carried, is sufficient to hold that the same being not carried, penalty was inevitable. 11. The judgment of apex court in the case of Guljag Industries (supra) is squarely applicable in the facts of the instant case, which has taken into consideration that a declaration form if not produced, being mandatory, the penalty is obvious. 12. The Larger Bench of this court in the case of ACTO v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (2015) 82 VST 200 (Raj.), has also taken the same view and there being no contrary judgment, the impugned order is just and proper. 13. It would also be appropriate to quote section 37 of the Act :- "Section 37. Rectification of a mistake (1) With a view to rectifying any mistake apart from the record, any officer appointed or any authority constituted under the Act may rectify suo motu or otherwise any order passed by him. Explanation : A mistake apparent from the record shall include an order which was valid when it was made and is subsequently rendered invalid by an amendment of the law having retrospective operation or by a judgment of the Supreme Court, the Rajasthan High Court or the Rajasthan Tax Board. (2) No application for rectificati....