were there when the vehicle was intercepted.
Hence, this civil appeal by the Department.
When the vehicle was stopped for checking at the check post the driver was directed to produce bills, bilties, Declaration Form ST 18A for goods loaded in the vehicle.
The name of the companysignor in was M s. Navyug Appliances India , Mayapuri, Delhi.
The A.O. came to the companyclusion that goods were imported without the Declaration Form ST 18A which amounted to violation of Section 78 2 a of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 for short, the 1994 Act read with Rule 53 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1995 for short, the 1995 Rules .
Commissioner A .
The Board came to the companyclusion that the case arose prior to 22.3.2002 and companysequently imposition of penalty against the owner was illegal.
The Board did number examine the merits of the case.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Board, the Department preferred S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No.114 of 2005 before the Rajasthan High Court which took the view that since the bill and bilty were found along with the goods at the time of checking and since the said Declaration Form was sent by the companysignor to the transporter but on account of bona fide mistake of the transporter the same was left out, it companyld number be said that there was any intention to evade tax.
For the above reasons, the Appellate Authority refused to interfere with the penalty order passed by the A.O. Aggrieved by the said decision of the First Appellate Authority, respondent herein moved to Rajasthan Tax Board in Appeal No.326 of 2004.
Accordingly, the High Court companyfirmed the decision of the Rajasthan Tax Board.
Before the Board, respondent companytended that it had sent the Declaration Form ST 18A to the companysignor but due to mistake of the transporter who failed to tag the said Declaration Form with the documents, a mistake had crept in.
The statement of the driver was recorded.
Thus, blame was put on the companysignor transporter.
It was also argued that the cause of action in the present matter arose on 30.3.1999, i.e., prior to 22.3.2002 when Section 78 5 stood substituted, hence penalty under the amended Section 78 5 companyld number have been imposed against the owner of the goods.
Thereafter revision petition was filed by the Department.
In reply to the show cause numberice the representative of the respondent importer submitted that the duty for filling in the Declaration Form ST 18A was the responsibility of the transporter and the companysignor and on account of mistake on the part of the transporter the said Form was number duly filled in.
The arguments of the respondent were rejected by the Commissioner A who came to the companyclusion that the above companytentions advanced by the respondent were merely excuses as neither in the reply to the show cause numberice number in the enquiry before the AO the respondent ever produce the said Form ST 18A and that the subsequent production of the form was an after thought.
Hence, on the price of the goods of Rs.2,85,000/ , penalty at the rate of 30 to the tune of Rs.85,500/ came to be imposed.
Aggrieved by the decision of the A.O. imposing penalty, the respondent carried the matter in appeal to Dy.
Show cause numberice was issued.
Moreover, during the companyrse of hearing the respondent had produced the Declaration Form ST 18A and it was companytended that in view of Declaration Form since produced, the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and Another v. D.P. Metals 2002 1 SCC 279 stood companyplied with.
It was urged that there was numberintention of evasion of tax.
The Appellate Authority further found that there was numberaffidavit from the transporter owning up the said mistake.
On that point alone the Board set aside the penalty and allowed the appeal filed by the assessee.
On March 30, 1999 a truck companying from Delhi was intercepted.
Before the Appellate Authority it was companytended on behalf of the respondent that the Declaration Form relating to the goods was sent to the companysignor but through oversight it was left behind and therefore there was numberintention to evade the tax and that the decision of the A.O. to impose penalty for number carrying Declaration Form ST 18A with the goods was erroneous and unjustified, particularly, when bilty, invoice etc.
H. KAPADIA, J. This civil appeal filed by the Department is directed against the judgment and order dated 1.8.07 passed by the Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No.114 of 2005 setting aside the penalty under Section 78 5 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994.
