2017 (1) TMI 201

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o., Jaipur, and Telephone Call Monitors were found being sent by Kores (India) Hyderabad and the purchasers being, (i) Nitin Rungta Bagad, Jhunjhunu; (ii) Giriraj Prasad, Kota; (iii) Zafar Mohd., Kota; and (iv) Akash Bagad, Kishangarh. Though all the purchasers being at different places, however, it was informed by the representative of the Transport Co. that delivery of these goods is required to be given at the office of respondent which is situated at Devi Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur, as per telephonic message. The representative also produced Check-post receipt bearing no.415794 dt 9.7.1994, which was deposited by them to be recovered from Kores (India), Ltd., the respondent. The Assessing Officer, prima facie, being not satisfied with the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Ltd. (2015) 82 VST 200 (Raj.). Learned counsel also contended that the goods being electrical goods notified, therefore, declaration form was mandatory. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the Telephone Call Monitors are electronic goods, and since they were not notified under the Act, there was no requirement in law for carrying goods not notified and declaration form ST-18A was not mandatory, and once there was no requirement of carrying declaration form in a case of un-notified goods, question of imposition of penalty does not arise and has rightly been deleted by the Tax Board and has supported the judgment of Tax Board and relied upon B.P.L. Ltd. v. State of A.P. (2001) 2 SCC 139, Sahney Steel & Press Wo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... on a show cause notice, therefore, the judgment of the apex court in the case of Guljag Industries (supra) is squarely applicable. The judgment of Larger Bench of this court in the case of Indian Oil (supra), which has also elaborately discussed the same issue, has held that if the declaration form is not produced or not found in a case, it can safely be held that the goods were being transported with the intention of evasion of tax. 8. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent in the case of Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. v. CTO (supra), in my view is entirely on a distinct fact and so also the judgment in South India Viscose Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu (supra) is not applicable in the facts of the instant case. ....