Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
A C T O Flying Squad Alwar vs Kameshwar Dayal Gupta on 29 May, 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. ORDER. SB Sales Tax Revision Petition No.86/2011 Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Flying Squad, Alwar vs. Kameshwar Dayal Gupta, Bharatpur. Date of order :- 29.5.2013. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAINENDRA KUMAR RANKA Ms. Tanvi Sahay, for Mr. RB. Mathur, for the petitioner. By the Court:-
1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner-department under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act,1994 ( in short 'The Act of 1994) challenging the order dated 27.08.2002 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, in appeal No. 716/1999 and 717/1999 by which the order passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)-II, Jaipur, (In short DC(A)) dated 15.10.1998, was affirmed who had deleted the penalty imposed on the owner of the vehicle amounting to Rs. 22,500/-.
2. The brief facts emerging on the face of record are that on 5.4.1998 vehicle No. RJ-05G 1943 was intercepted but the driver did not stop the vehicle and after chasing it was stopped after about 6 kms. But the driver ran away after leaving the vehicle. The vehicle contained tins of mustard oil and were transmitted from Delhi to Bagad on which labels of Lakshmi Oil were pasted and no documents were available with the vehicle. On 7.4.1998 an application was moved by one Kedar Chand and submitted that the goods relate to M/s. Balaji Trading Co. Nagar and produced Bill dated 4.4.1998 and the value of the goods was written at Rs. 1,12,455/- . The Assessing Officer, did not agree with the reply and imposed two penalties namely; one on the owner of the goods namely Balaji Trading Company amounting to to Rs. 22,500/- and another penalty of the equivalent amount on the owner of the vehicle namely Kameshwar Dayal Gupta under section 78(5) of the Act.
3. Aggrieved with the said order of penalties, the two respondents preferred separate appeals before the learned DC(A). However, in so far as the present respondent is concerned, i.e. the owner of the vehicle, the DC(A) was satisfied that no penalty is leviable on him as there was no fault of the respondent owner of the vehicle and deleted the penalty imposed under Section 78(5) of the Act. However, penalty imposed upon the owner of the goods M/s. Balaji Trading Company, Nagar, is concerned, was confirmed. It was held that penalty was already sustained in the case of owner of the goods therefore, no separate penalty can be imposed on owner of vehicle. Being dis-satisfied with the order passed by the learned DC(A) the petitioner department preferred appeal before the Tax Board, Ajmer, against the deletion of penalty on the owner of the vehicle (the present respondent).Appeal was also filed against the penalty sustained on the owner of the goods by M/s. Balaji Trading Company. The Tax Board, after going through the material on record, was fully satisfied in deleting the penalty imposed upon the present respondent, the owner of the vehicle, therefore, the order of the learned DC(A) was affirmed. However, Tax Board confirmed the order of penalty imposed upon the owner of the goods, i.e. M/s. Balaji Trading Company Nagar, Bharatpur.
4. Hence, this revision petition.
5. Ms. Tanvi Sahai, appearing on behalf of Mr. RB Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the Act, the penalties can be levied upon both the persons, namely the owner of the goods and the owner of the vehicle and further submitted that the Tax Board, was unjustified in passing the order of deletion of penalty upon the present respondent, the owner of the vehicle and sustaining the penalty upon the owner of the goods by ignoring the provisions of the Act.
6. I have gone through the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner-department and have perused the material on record as well as the orders passed by the two appellate authorities. From the perusal of the record, it is clear from the facts of the instant case that the driver of the vehicle ran away after leaving the vehicle from the spot on the premise on his understanding that he may be pressurized or forced to accept the offence but thereafter, the owner of the vehicle appeared immediately as also the owner of the goods. Both the owners appeared before the Assessing Officer of the Department and admitted about the ownership of the goods and the vehicle and in the case of the owner of the goods, the penalty was upheld by the Tax Board but in my opinion, the imposition of penalty upon the owner of the vehicle i.e. present respondent cannot be said to be justified and it has rightly been deleted by the learned DC(A) and sustained by the Tax Board. The two penalties on the same facts and circumstances of the case though may be leviable on the same transaction but in the present case, there was no fault of the owner of the vehicle at all, when the fault, if any was on the basis of documents and in that case penalty has been sustained on the owner of the goods.
7. Before concluding with this order, I consider it just and proper to observe that the revision petition in the case like this, which involved meager penalty of Rs.22,500/- and tax/penalty of such meager amount should not be challenged before this Court and should undergo a careful scrutiny in the department to avoid infructuous expenditure of public exchequer. In this case, there is concurrent finding given by the two appellate authorities and after analyzing provisions of the Act, when such is the position, there is no need for the revenue department to approach this Court. It is quite possible that the expenditure incurred by the revenue department, may have been much more as it has pursued the matter before the Tax Board as well as before this Court. A copy of this order be sent to the Principal Secretary to the Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur and also to the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Jaipur, for taking action in the cases like this and in coming out with a policy on the lines of National Litigation Policy 2009 formulated by the Government of India.
9. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, no case is made out to call for any interference by this Court, as no error, illegality or impropriety is found in the order passed by the Tax Board. It is essentially a finding of fact. No question of law is involved.
10. Resultantly, the Sales Tax Revision Petition stands dismissed.
(Jainendra Kumar Ranka),J.
All Corrections made in the Judgment/Order have been incorporated in the Judgment and Order being emailed.
RK BhattPSJW