Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
A C T O vs M/S Goyal Oil Mills Ltd on 26 September, 2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. SALES TAX REVISION NO.72/2011
Assistant Commissioner,
Anti Evasion, Bharatpur
...Petitioner
VERSUS
M/s. Goyal Oil Mills,
Shivad, Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
...Respondent
Date of Order :: 26/09/2016
HON'BLE MR. JAINENDRA KUMAR RANKA, J.
Ms. Menal Ghiya, counsel for petitioner
ORDER
1. Instant petition at the instance of Revenue is directed against order of the Tax Board dt.29/10/2010 dismissing appeal of the Revenue.
2. Brief facts noticed are that on 20/10/2004 a tanker bearing No.UP 75-B-9547 wherein mustard oil was loaded was checked by the officers of the Anti Evasion Wing near Kunda Bayana Check post District Bharatpur. The driver/incharge produced Bill No.239 dt.28/10/2004 of M/s. Goyal Oil Mill, Shivad, Distt. Sawaimadhopur; Builty No.1882 dt.28/10/2004 and letter dt.28/10/2004 issued on the letter head of M/s. Goyal Oil Mill. Statement of the driver/incharge was also recorded. However, finding some discrepancies, a show cause notice was given, explanation was offered by the respondent-assessee and it was contended that the documents are complete in all respects and even D Form duly filled in was found with the driver/incharge. However, the AO was not satisfied 2 and held that the bill and builty were prepared with the same handwriting and finding some discrepancies in the statements, imposed penalty under Section 78(5).
3. On an appeal by the assessee before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) [DC(A)] resulted into deletion of penalty and the DC(A) held that on perusal of the assessment records, all documents were found available and merely on the basis of suspicion, the penalty cannot be imposed.
4. On a further appeal by the Revenue before the Tax Board also resulted into dismissal of the appeal of the Revenue holding that merely on the basis of suspicion, the penalty cannot be imposed and the Tax Board upheld order of the DC(A).
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the goods were being carried with the intention of evasion of tax and lot of discrepancies were noticed by the AO; the bill and builty could not have been prepared by the same person which shows that there was collusion of the assessee with the transporter and the AO was justified in levying penalty and contended that questions of law arise out of the order of the Tax Board.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioner-Revenue and have gone through the order impugned as well as the other material available on record.
7. In my view, the order of the Tax Board is just and proper and is not required to be interfered with. Admittedly, both the appellate authorities have come to a finding of fact perusing the 3 assessment records of the AO where it is admitted that both i.e seller as well as purchaser are registered dealers; the goods were supported by bills, builty and even before the AO the documentary evidence of the entries in the books of accounts was produced which has not been found adverse in any manner. Though both the appellate authorities have come to the conclusion that the bill and builty appears to be not of the same ink or writing but even if this may be a factor, in my view, it does not show any collusion of the respondent with the transporter.
8. Admittedly, the goods were being carried with D Form also complete in all respects and merely because some suspicion or doubt was raised by the AO, is no reason for imposing penalty. Both the appellate authorities have arrived at a finding of fact based on the evidence and material on record and I find no error, illegality or perversity in the order impugned passed by the Tax Board so as to call for interference by this Court and in my view, no substantial question of law arise out of the order impugned.
9. Consequently, the petition, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.
[JAINENDRA KUMAR RANKA],J.
Raghu 4 5