Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

A C T O versus M/S VISHESH AGARBATI UDYOG JAI

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


A C T O v M/S VISHESH AGARBATI UDYOG JAI - STR Case No. 78 of 2006 [2007] RD-RJ 4350 (5 September 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR

BENCH, JAIPUR

ORDER ::

S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 78/2006

Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer,

Anti Evasion-I, Zone-I, Jaipur

Versus

M/s. Vishesh Agarbatti Udyog, 356, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur ::

Date of order :: September 05, 2007

PRESENT

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

Mr. R.B. Mathur for the petitioner-Revenue

Mr. R.C. Shah and Rajeev Surana for the respondent-assessee

BY THE COURT: 1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the Tax

Board dated 08.02.2002, whereby the Tax Board allowed the appeal of the assessee and found that the goods in question, namely, Agarbatti Oil, purchased by the respondent assessee, a registered dealer, against 'C' Forms, were not brought within the

State against false or forged documents and therefore, the penalty under Section 78(5) of the Act could not be imposed upon the respondent assessee. 2. The Tax Board giving its detailed order found that as a matter of fact, the mistake in taking the goods to the Vishwakarma

Industrial Area in Jaipur arose on account of wrong telephone number given on the envelope containing the concerned bill and bilty and since the goods were checked in Vishwakarma Industrial

Area, the learned assessing authority raised a suspicion that the goods were being brought within the State without proper documents. However, upon enquiry from the two concerned industries of Vishwakarma Industrial Area, namely, M/s. Supreme

Snuffery and M/s. Swami Fragrance, both the concerned persons denied having any relation with the said goods in question and they had also denied that they had any transaction for purchase of these goods with the respondent assessee M/s. Vishesh

Agarbatti Udyog. Therefore, the Tax Board found that it was a case of mistake emanating from the wrong telephone number on the envelope and there was no malafide intention on the part of the respondent assessee. Admittedly, the invoice and bilty in question contained the full name and address of the respondent assessee at 351, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur who participated in the penalty proceedings and has also contested the appeals upto the

Tax Board. The goods in question were not delivered to anybody in Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur. The wrong telephone number misled the driver of the truck to Vishwakarma Industrial

Area, where it was checked by the assessing authority. 3. The Tax Board being a final fact finding body, has recorded a well-reasoned finding on the basis of the available material that the goods in question were not brought within the State with false or forged documents and therefore, no penalty under Section 78

(5) of the Act could be imposed. Therefore, in the opinion of this court, this being a finding of fact, no question of law arises in the present matter requiring consideration under Section 86 of the

Act and the present revision petition is devoid of any merit. 4. Consequently, this revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

(Dr.VINEET KOTHARI),J.

Pramod

Item No. 14


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.