ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ANTI EVASION COMMERCIAL TAXES, BHARATPUR versus M/S. AMTEK INDLA LIMITED

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 1092 · Decided: 22-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ANTI EVASION COMMERCIAL TAXES, 
BHARATPUR 
MIS. AMTEK INDlA LIMITED 
B 
FEBRUARY 22, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASA VAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. 1994-Section 78(5)-Penalty imposed on 
C consignee by Assessing Authority for producing non-genuine documents-
High Court holding the transactions genuine and held the Assessing Officer 
cannot take plea of good faith and imposed cost to be paid personally by 
the Officer-On appeal held: Assessing Officer overlooked the documents 
produced and held that there was manipulation without any reasonable 
basis, thus, its action was not justified-However, cost imposed set aside. 
D 
Words and Phrases: 'Good Faith"-Meaning of 
'Respondent-assessee purchased certain goods from·the consignors. 
Vehicle of the assessee was checked and the Assessing Authority held the 
documents produced as not genuine since the date of invoice and the delivery 
E challan was different and imposed penalty under section 78(5) of the Rajasthan 
Sales Tax Act, 1994. It was assessee's case that the goods were purchased 
under invoice in which the seller charged excise duty and Central sales tax 
though they received the goods after one year. Appellate Authorities set aside 
the penalty. Revenue filed Revision Petition. High Court dismissed the petition 
F and imposed cost on the Assessing Officer. It held that the transit and 
transactions were perfectly genuine; that the action of the authorities cannot 
be countenanced; and that they cannot take the plea of good faith which was 
not established. Hence the present appeal. 
G 
H 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Whether an act has been done in good faith would depend 
upon the factual scenario. In order to establish "good faith", it has to be 
established that what has been imputed concerning the person cl:.iming it to 
be so, is true. Anything done with due care and attention, which is not ma/a 
1092 
... 
ASSISTANTCOM/'o.1NR. A~il EVASION COMMERCIAL TAXES. BHARATPUR 1·. AMTEJ.; INOIA LTD. !PASAYAT. J.i 
) 093 
fide is presumed to have been done in 'good faith'. (Paras 10 and 12) 
A 
1.2. In the instant case, though the action of the Assessing Officer, in 
overlooking the documents produced coming to the conclusion about 
manipulation appears to be totally uncalled for and without any reasonable 
basis. This is a case where the officer should have been more careful and 
should not have acted in a manner as if he was a bloodhound and not a watchdog B 
of revenue. It is unfortunate that in large number of cases, orders totally bereft 
of rationality are being passed. They do not in any manner serve public interest, 
much less the interest of revenue. Therefore, while holding that the action of 
the Assessing Authority was clearly unjustified, direction for imposition of 
cost is set aside. (Paras 16 and 17) (1095-G; 1096-A) 
C 
Deena v. Bharat Singh, (2002) 6 Supreme Court 336, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 896 of2007. 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 3.5.2006 of the High Court of 
Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in SB Sales Tax Revision D 
; 
Petition No. 12 of 2006. 
Sushi! Kumar Jain, Puneet Jain, Chrishti Jain, Sarad Singhania, H.D. 
Thanvi and Rani Maheshwari for the Appellant. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
E 
DR."ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single 
~· 
Judge of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur. By the impugned order the High 
Court dismissed the revision petition, filed by the appellant, and imposed cost F 
of Rs.5,000/- to be paid personally by the Commercial Tax Officer, Anti Evasion, 
Bharatpur who passed the assessment order dated 14.9.2001. 
I
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
Penalty under Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 G 
(hereinafter refen-ed to as the 'Act') was imposed on the respondent (hereinafter 
referred to as the 'assessee') on the ground that at the time of checking of 
vehicle on 7.9.2001, the documents produced showed that bill No.155 dated 
29.9.2000 ofM/s. Georg Fischer Disa Limited, Satyamangala Industrial Area, 
H 
1094 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 2 S.C.R. 
A Tumkur, Karnataka raised on the respondent-assessee M/s. Amtek India Ltd., 
Biwadi along with delivery challan No. 5259 dated 3.9.2001 form No. ST-ISA 
in which invoice No.155 was also mentioned and form No.ST -39 prescribed 
under Ka

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.