2015 (9) TMI 1515

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e petitioner-Revenue, the order dated November 5, 2003 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) (for short, "the DC (A)") has been upheld. It relates to the assessment year 2002-03. Brief facts noticed are that the respondent is a transporter and was carrying soya oil and gutka from Indore to Delhi in vehicle No. HR-38/E-4479 on February 13, 2013. Though the goods were to be meant for going to Delhi but the vehicle was intercepted at Ghatoli Check-post, Jhalawar, by the authorized officers of the petitioner-Department and it was found that the incharge produced, builty, bill and other vouchers but with reference to gutka, the CST number of the consignee was not noticed and therefore, the Assessing Officer (for short, "the AO") came to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in the order impugned. It is admitted that the Tax Board has found as a finding of fact that the goods were being transported fromIndore to Delhi and merely passing through the State of Rajasthan and as such, there was no occasion for the AO to intercept or check the vehicle at the check post to come to the conclusion on their own and such presumption on the part of the AO was not proper. Even the AO in the assessment order has clearly mentioned that the bills and vouchers were found and except at one place CST number of one of the parties was not found that does not mean that the bill becomes forged, wrong or otherwise. Even the AO, in the assessment order imposing penalty has stated, name of purchaser along with bill number, builty numbe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....urisdiction to impose any penalty under section 22A(7) of the Rajas than Sales Tax Act, 1954. For evasion of any tax taking place outside Rajasthan, the Act had no application to it. . . . The only question before us is whether the person incharge of the goods at the time of checking can be made liable for the payment of penalty in case he fails to produce the requisite documents. The principle laid down in Sant Lal's case [1993] 91 STC 321 (SC) was also followed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur in Swastic Roadways v. Commercial Tax Officer, Bharatpur [1996] 103 STC 106 (MP). It was held that no duty on clearing and forwarding  agents and transporters or common carriers to furnish to the Commissioner, information inc....