TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1509
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lden Iron & Steel Works, New Delhi, dated 1.1.1998, and ST 18-A declaration form nos.016194 and 014426. 3. On perusal of the declaration forms ST 18-A it was noticed by the Officer that it was incomplete, as it did not contain the nature of items carried, quantity, weight, value, bill/challan number, so also name and address of the transporter. It was also noticed in the builty that CST number and declaration form number was also left blank. Even in the bills the CST number of purchaser was found wrong and other discrepancies were also noticed. Show-cause notice was issued, reply was filed, however, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied and he imposed penalty of Rs. 1,61,734/-. The said order was assailed before the Dy. Commissioner(Appeals), who also upheld the order of Assessing Officer. The matter was carried in further appeal by the respondent-assessee before the Tax Board, who however deleted the penalty. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that several discrepancies were noticed by the authorised officer who intercepted the vehicle at the check-post and she contended that material particulars were left blank not only in the ST 18-A declaration form, but e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me in the way in carrying declaration form ST 18-A. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Guljag Industries (supra) had an occasion to consider an identical issue about incomplete/blank declaration forms and it has been opined by the Hon'ble Apex Court that when material particulars are lacking in the declaration form, then it goes to prove that the goods were being transported primarily with an intention for evasion of tax. It would be appropriate to quote relevant paras as under:- "24. Form ST 18-A, as quoted above, is in two parts. Part- A has to be filled in by the consignee. Part-B has to be filled in by the consignor. The nature of the transaction as to whether it is by consignment or by depot transfer or by inter-state sale has to be indicated by the consignee. Similarly, the consignee has to indicate the description of the goods. In the present case the consignee (the assessee) has left the requisite columns blank. Part-B has to be filled in by the consignor. Part-B requires the consignor to give the estimated value of goods. He has also to give invoice number and the date. It is important to note that the declaration form is collected by the consignee from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....value is to provide to the State a remedy for the loss of revenue. The object behind enactment of Section 78(5) is to emphasise loss of revenue and to provide a remedy for such loss. It is not the object of the said Section to punish the offender for having committed an economic offence and to deter him from committing such offences. The penalty imposed under the said Section 78(5) is a civil liability. Willful consignment is not an essential ingredient for attracting the civil liability as in the case of prosecution. Section 78(2) is a mandatory provision. If the declaration Form ST 18-A/18-C does not support the goods in movement because it is left blank then in that event Section 78(5) provides for imposition of monetary penalty for noncompliance. 27. Default or failure to comply with Section 78(2) is the failure/default of statutory civil obligation and proceedings under Section 78(5) are neither criminal nor quasi-criminal in nature. The penalty is for statutory offence. Therefore, there is no question of proving of intention or of mens rea as the same is excluded from the category of essential element for imposing penalty. Penalty under Section 78(5) is attracted as soon a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that no penalty could have been imposed on owner of the goods prior to 22.3.2002 which has been relied upon by the Tax Board, even the said finding has been reversed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in ACTO v. Bajaj Electricals Limited (supra). It would be appropriate to quote the relevant paras of the judgment, which reads as under: "28. If one reads Sub-section (5) of Section 78 in its entirety with Rule 53 of the 1995 Rules, it is clear that penalty was liable to be imposed for importation of any taxable goods for sale without furnishing a declaration in Form ST 18-A completely filled in all respects. The duty to fill and furnish the said Form is imposed on the purchasing dealer. Therefore, Section 78(5) as it stood prior to 22.3.2002 imposed penalty if possession or movement of goods took place inter alia in breach of Section 78(2)(a) on "the person in-charge", which included the owner. In this connection it may be noted that Sub-section (5) comes after Sub-section (4)(c) which talks about release of the goods to "the owner of the goods" on his giving of adequate security. It is the owner (importer) who has to fill in Form ST 18-A. It is the owner who is entitled to seek....