Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Flying Squad, Comm. Taxes vs Krishna Oil Industries

Alok Sharma, J.—This revision petition has been filed against the order dated April 9, 2003, passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer. The facts of the case are that the respondent-assessee purchased goods from M/s. Vimal Oil Industries, Kekri, through bill No. 420 dated July 18, 1996 for Rs. 3,54,005, against declaration ST 17 (D form) and transported the goods under bilty No. 109 dated July 18, 1996 from Kekri to Mania, District Dholpur. In the course of transportation, the goods were checked and the assessing officer found certain discrepancies including that the number of the declaration ST 17 was not mentioned in the bill (even though the declaration form was before the assessing officer) and that the DD number was not shown in the bill under which the goods were dispatched from the seller to the buyer (even though the bill recorded that part payment of the consideration was received through a demand draft). Based on the discrepancies in the documents as aforesaid, the assessing officer sought to verify the bill in issue from the regular bill book of the consignor and found that the third foil of the bill, which was earlier torn out from the bill book along with two other foils was pasted at the back of the bill book.

A show-cause notice was issued to the respondent-assessee to show why penalty not be imposed. In reply to the show-cause notice, the respondent-assessee furnished the number of declaration of ST 17 and sought to disabuse the assessing officer''s mind owing to certain technical lacunae in the documents accompanying the goods in transit even though there was no evidence to doubt the genuineness of the transaction and transit of goods in pursuance thereof. The assessing officer however proceeded to levy a penalty of Rs. 70,800 u/s 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994.

In appeal by the respondent-assessee, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of penalty holding it to be based on mere suspicion and not on any positive finding of irregularity in the course of transit of goods in question. A further appeal by the petitioner also came to be dismissed by the Rajasthan Tax Board vide its order dated April 9, 2003.

I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dated April 9, 2003.

In my considered opinion, minor lacunae in the documents accompanying the goods in transit did not constitute a substantial ground for levy of penalty. It is an admitted position that the goods in transit were accompanied by all requisite documents required in law i.e., a bill evidencing the sale from the consignor to the consignee and a valid goods transit receipt. These transactions were also recorded in the books of account of the assessee. The respondent-assessee had furnished the number of declaration ST 17 against which the goods in transit had been purchased. The DD number on the bills relevant to the goods in transit indicated passing of consideration and buttressed the genuineness of the transaction. There was no evidence on record before the assessing officer to hold that the transaction was not a genuine transaction or there was any intent to evade tax. Merely on the basis of suspicion, penalty could not have been levied. In my considered opinion, in the facts obtaining before this court the findings of fact by the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tax Board cannot be interfered with because they are neither vitiated by perversity nor by any misdirection in law. Consequently, the revision petition is without force and the same is therefore dismissed.