LexASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER versus M/S. BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 513 513 ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER A ... v. M/S. BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD. (Civil Appeal No. 5865 of 2008) NOVEMBER 6, 2008 B [S.H. KAPADIA AND 8. SUDERSHAN REDDY, JJ.] ,t Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994- s.78(5)- Penalty.under - Incomplete/blank declaration Form ST 1 BA, signed by the consignee accompanying goods in movement - Held: c Amounts to contravention of s. 78(2) - Penalty imposable under s. 78(5) - The amendment made in s. 78(5) by which expression " person in-charge of the goods" under the old s. 78(5) was substituted by the words "the owner of the goods or a person authorized in writing by such owner or person in- 0 charge of the goods" was c!arificatory in nature - Rajasthan y Sales Tax Rules, 1995 - Rule 53. ' The case of department was that on 30.3.1998, a vehicle was intercepted. At the time of checking of the E vehicle at the check post, the driver produced signed but a blank Declaration Form ST 18A, with the goods in movement. The important columns were left blank and material particulars were not given. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) imposed penalty holding that there was violation F of s.78(2)(a) of Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 r.w. Rule 53 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1995. Before the Appellate Authority, it was contended by respondent-assessee that the Declaration Form relating to the goods was sent to the consignor but through G oversight it was left behind and there was no intention to evade the tax. However, during the course of hearing, ,,.....,._ the assessee produced the Declaration Form ST 18A. The Appellate Authority held that the contentions 513 H 514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R. A advanced by the assessee were merely excuses as neither in the reply to the show cause notice nor in the enquiry before the A.O., the assessee ever produced the said Form ST 18A and the subsequent production of the form was an after-thought. B The Tax Board held that the cause of action arose prior to 22.3.2002 when s.78(5) stood substituted and consequently imposition of penalty under amended s. 78(5) against .the owner was illegal. High Court confirmed the decision of Tax Board. Hence the instant C appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD:1.1. Part-A of Declaration Form 18A has to be 0 filled in by the consignee. Part-B has to be filled in by the consignor. The nature of the transaction as' to whether it is by consignment or by depot transfer or by interstate sale has to be indicated by the consignee. Similarly, the consignee has to indicate the description of the goods. E Part-B requires the consignor to give the estimated value of goods. He has also to give invoice number and the date. The entire form was left blank though it was signed by the consignee. Therefore, the declaration given by the consignee was meaningless. There were no facts given in Part-A. There was no identity or description of the F goods transported. The original was to be placed before the A.O. by the officer at the check-post. If the form which ultimately goes to the A.O. is blank in all material respects then it is impossible for the A.O. to assess the dealer. Such practice has resulted in loss of revenue in crores G to the State. Without description of the goods imported, it is easy to manipulate the value. If material particulars are not submitted, assessment could not be finalized. Since the goods in movement were not supported by duly filled in Form No.18A/18C, there was contravention H · of s. 78(2) of the Rajas than Sales Tax Act, .· ' ':'- ' mi . - ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER v. BAJAJ 515 ELECTRICALS LTD . .... 1954. (Para 8] [523-F, G; 524-A-E] A 1.2. There is dichotomy between contravention of s.78(2) of the Act which invites strict civil liability on the assessee and the evasion of tax. When a statement of import/export is not filed before the A.O. it results in B evasion of tax, however, when the goods in movement are carried without the declaration Form No.18A/18C then JI t strict liability comes in, in the form of s.78(5) of the Act. Breach of s.78(2) imposes strict liability under s.78(5) because goods in movement cannot be carried without Form No.18A/18C. (Para 8] [524-F, G] c 1.3. It is not the object of the s.78(5) to punish the offender for having committed an economic offence and to deter him from committing such offences. The penalty imposed under the said s.78(5
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.