LexASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER versus M/S. KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010] 4 S.C.R. 654 ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER v. M/S. KANSAI NEROLAC PAINTS LTD. (Civil Appeal No. 3288 of 2010) APRIL 15, 2010 [S.H. KAPADIA AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 - s. 78(2) and (5) - Issue as regard imposition of penalty in terms of s. 78(5) on account C of not giving material particulars in form ST 18 A - Penalty set aside by appellate authority as also Tax Board - Revision petition - Dismissed by High Court without recording any reasons - On appeal, held: Records and facts clearly show that High Court erred in law in not recording any reasons - D Thus, order of High Court is unreasoned and suffers from the infirmity of non-application of mind - Order of High Court set aside and the case remitted back to High Court. Certain goods were transported from one place to E another. The Customs Enforcement Department intercepted the vehicle and found that the goods were transferred by stock transfer but the declaration form ST 18A was completely blank. The Department treating the consignment under the category of incomplete documents in terms of s. 78(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax F Act, 1994 imposed penalty in terms of s. 78(5) of the Act. The appellate authority as also the State Tax Board set aside the penalty imposed upon the owner of goods. The Department filed revision petition. The High Court disposed of the revision petition without giving reasons. G Hence, the present appeal. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The High Court has not recorded its own H 654 ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER v. KANSAI 655 NEROLAC PAINTS LTD. reasoning· for dismissing the revision petition in A accordance with law. It would have certainly been more appropriate for the High Court to examine the matter at some length and deal with the arguments/grounds raised in the petition before it. [Para 9) [659-C] B 1.2. In the case of *Gu/jag Industries, this Court had held that the object of s. 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 was to remedy the loss of revenue and where Form ST 18A/18C was duly signed but without giving material particulars, would automatically attract levy of C penalty for breach of Section 78 (2) of the Act. The modus operandi of the owner of goods did indicate mens rea. In *Bajaj Electricals Ltd's case, this Court explained the expression 'person in charge of the goods' with reference to the declaration Form ST 18A prescribed under Rule 53 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1995 and substitution D of this expression by 'the owner of the goods or person in charge of the goods' by amending Act 7 of 2002. The modus operandi adopted by the consignee of not giving material particulars in Form ST 18-A would by itself meet the object of mens rea. [Para 9) [659-D-G] 1.3. The records and the facts clearly show that the High Court erred in law in not recording any reasons for rejecting the respective contentions raised before the Court. Thus, the order of the High Court is unreasoned and suffers from the infirmity of non-application of mind. The order of High Court is set aside and the case is remitted to the High Court with a request to hear the case de novo and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. [Paras 9 and 10] [660-A-B] *Gu/jag Industries v. Commercial Tax Officer (2007) 7 SCC 269; *Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Bajaj Electricals Ltd. (2009) 1 SCC 308, Referred to. E F G H A 656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS Case Law Reference: c2001) 1 sec 269 (2009) 1 sec 308 Referred to. Referred to. [2010] 4 S.C.R. Paras 6,9 Para 9 B CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3288 of 2010. c D From the Judgment & Order dated 17 .12.2007 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in S.B. Civil Sales Tax Revision No. 282 of 2007. A.P. Sahay and Jatinder Kumar Bhatia for the Appellant. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SWATANTER KUMAR, J. 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. We may notice necessary facts giving rise to the present appeal. Vehicle No. RJ-19G-3661 was carrying 'parchun' E materials and in addition 377 pieces of drum bucket paints. These goods were transported from Ughna (Surat) to Jodhpur under Silty No. 014951 dated 17.06.1997 issued by Mis. Deshbandhu Transport Company and the goods were consigned to M/s. Goodlass Nerolac Paints Limited. This vehicle was intercepted and checked by the Customs F Enforcement Depart
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.