iFITf t5 &i'ft - 2124/2010/9

Tf cp nf I RT 3TfEi5It,

qP4 TM71, Td-ff .. I

-lIl-t

i1 wmt q f mofTo, __ _

—28, tt u 1c iRii, ZT5THF, '3l

3 39cp ff - 31T1qI, ic1

3-q Iilcf 3Tfm

,

Rhlicl) : 02.04.2018

fT

zr i)ci —tTrT iictci (3f1) fffIRr.lcP

ST4 3ii1 " tj) eI) .i 3IfE" T 1 I ii) I

Ol/i'1ed—IV/08-09/t # Wftff 31II {IiCr. 04.03.2010 * {I"c cc1

*, II

, (fr wr "i I ctci 1f5rr' ZT5T i I ii) R[ I 1 m:rTc,4 tftf - ET5 3IffRFE, 2003 (f Iir "&ff1zpT' -i I 'i) T1 8TT

76(6) * TE 31II 1iicp 01.02.2008 Ict 3T;:T4c1 311{lc1 Tftff TIT

74,480/— T5"t II'-c1 1i TT t I

2. !,cPI [QT ]'T T cPl'c * fcl5 TTVICtc1 3f1ThTt TT 1IICP 30.01.2008

M CN11 i - ici) tR I - N tTh-121 _9228 'r

RbI ilITI c1I1 1Tf " I" * cIIl tlk'icb

]—IT T% 1i ii

1. .31[Ie1 I—'1, .#II t 'HsI 2150 74 2151 F-IIq)

29.01.2008 ii-1," 4)cIIIc

2. iicicV1 iiT '~FN iic"i ffl.fT. 5TIII 45J t 1c1I1 'dsLli 860

14 859 1?iicp 29.01.2008 cfr9I: 84,545/— it

1,63,709/— I

3. "HIcc1 &fE5T [T 3ITI qg tThZT fs frjQ 1T "cPI 'R" cP-I'1c

'q" ITT4 W 7F\—,gi rr 5T I I

11 U t [RT * -c1Ii1 1II WT t -49 aTF4VZFcF t, 3T[: 3Tf.TfR1T1

ct TRT 76(2)() 'iqRjci PRl 54 cFT cl1 tf Ej fff

1Ic1 1'rC {b1I jlIcP' TRT 76(6) mt Rbi TIRfFI IcicI

3TRrc-b~ -4 vT44 um Wc,c1 !1ccc1' It 311I -'.1 9I1 '3t'1c141 '- I1Ic'iLI

c'lIIc1I'c. ................ 2

I

- 2 - 3e1 1l - 2124/2010/"l1.

TT 1R Ul 1I9 ff1TIcP TfT [i1 3Ii1d HI

5197/2005 t HIRc1 fft1ZT fiicp 03.08.2007 TT cVc1 3[Rc1

T cicli1'1I t T*ThT -ll'1c' ?1TT 76(2)(t)

dg1f 119 54 T TW '3cc1 '9T91 qf R-4 PIc1 TrFH It C9*1

2,48,254/ — 'R ThT 76(6) * f[ 30 Riici Il[-c1 5'-1 74,480/-

31k'IF1c1 ti Ictc1 311Th5ft 31T * cciI T1

3Tf5T * &1 cc1 t fr Ti {jicr

04.03.2010 TT *O?N cb 3IMRIc1 H1T ft 15't 31LI k-cl Eff fiT ThT

&f F4T fTT i f1ThT 1T 3P)

4. Rii i Iict &fThff &FTT -T N-c,c1

W\,-4 0 lciN-B fc5 Wu--4 ii Lli'- i 3-11R IF (on consignment basis) 11

TT T1] Z U II T31 tff 49 LI ci Pt ci TfTT z

Z9T2T 9T Ptci t, LIcj, W,~7 WT5I # TifE 191cp 30.01.2008 q5r

f4MT TFqT, 3f q u I 'T TT Ttff QIT I

c1cLIti u q:5[ !c,cc1' TT T Ri TMT t c1ç

f.-iicp 31.01.2008 q5t 5JJ 3IT 2Jf, 3I[: tf 1iict 30.01.2008

r tf 3iR-cicci TI '3 9IrI1 I'j1ThT 3T

'i-IIe1'L1 TT 1~1i'1ct'k Tr,9. fT. 41i9 TAt3it (2014) 10 RGSTR 56 (RHC)

* 4Cu f ij c1ci cc 7 TffmT f5 Th1UH t

"by mistake" T f T cP1 it Piu

WcPIi Iii t( c)cPI' [bi [[ dcl-c11 M, 3TT: 31rZf5ft

'dIctc1 3{ff T 3-IiI 3lLIk-cl ftft-Th5 Tq *1 \1 3j1cj 3flI

t FORr R si cii -i I I cl-cl afOWFt 19M LI I Rci I I ZI5T TT21 cb '

IFT TT l*c,cl 3I1)c q t cPI J5J PcI II I

5 cI * 1ii 3T1T1T 74 aTtcI 3I1f * 31I?f ZFT 9Tf2T

t1 5E Ri TM * '-9 Ufl t[ t_49 -flT2T -4

i qT, LIT-J W42 TT 7qM * ]T2T cJ I ft ci qull gull q5I t[ t:-49

ftiT TFIT 21T fTt 9I14l-1 3rzIcl9 I'lIc1 TT State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Vs D.P. Metals (2001) 124 STC 611 (SC) * cP'i # fkt TrT Ptu11 * 3-IIc'i'lcb

T-C~Ctvz 1i jII'1i tii1 TI T 1Z # qft 9TT 4w T 1iicpi

T ITT 1Ic1 i1ici Pt9II' I'il {bii ITZ1T ?1F "t-q:r .q514

cl 1i 24T \31cPI ZT t IcTq-~T * f5.LIRCIPtc1 Tfli "i q"

ijt '1I9I'c1'1I )14ii RI'I liTh1 Kiiicii t, ci: c4cl5I') r 1ciii

f i)Pi 8RL4cI W 1 uii 'T it 3iPtciicii *1 c,ccl *

f ii * i1ci Ptu1.i

iIdk................3

I

- 3 - 31'e1 191I - 2124/2010/ 31 q tj

1. M/s Videocon Ind. Ltd. Vs. ACTO (2014) 10 RGSTR 56 (RHC)

2. M/s Bajaj Rubber Co. Vs. ACTO SB STR No- 311/2008 D/o 09-04-2013

3. M/s ITC Ltd Jaipur Vs. ACTO (2016) 13 RGSTR 40 (RTB-SB)

4. M/s A.B.B. Ltd. Jaipur Vs. ACTO: (2016) 55 Tax World 16 (RTB-SB)

5. ACTO Vs. Amtek Auto Ltd. Appeal No. 738/2016 D/o 13-09-2017

6. 31cPI TI-9 5T * f ZJ cP1TIt 1T , &f: Icc1

3Tf -E5Tr TT 31I'c'1R1ci iTf[ 3f4fTEF5 3T'4I"-c1 4 *1 \31

fFT im cc1 3Tt 3TThR 5J PI [i I

7 3WJ tfT i1 ITFt 'I H7II1c'i1 tR tqíg c5T 31ckcfr1 Ri

[cj ccp-i t * t RciPici T9TE consignment basis 11-

* T 1TTOT T fcpi '3c TT 1T 1I' 1I ir * i rf * TT 'qV t-49 14-ii'i 2T1 VTg

[RJ NT WcTM * ]T2T t4 —49 ci fii TMT 21T I '-1 I c

3T4 cp '-I * f cc1 ' f$ TJT Elhal l 1T t

49 cPllIcP 0510346 [T 0510347 T1Th:r cPII0'.1 tt Ift R1I0 31.01.2008 Zft

fT 1f * I T 4Tq9 t * t5 RVAT Rules, 2006 * PIl1 54(1)(i) * * cil6" RcPlI2 f

( I .r-i '.-i ' ct I ' iF iim

* ieiIciI) * TET * ci'I'I 9hull t[ —49 7iTQT VT1T 31jccp

*I d yRciPIci 1TI I\.rLl cPI'c NT 3TfJRT 1TE * fjf tR V45 qh u ll tF —49 l*c,d wT4 ZP 3lRIcH dcli *, u1ici

, 3TI: Tffc qRci.i * cirI t1UH q51 t-49 9TT # 11T 31PIclId * I

8. t 3* 1I'1 \3rcicI1 I'LIIzN 9M . c.e'd * !1cP.UI f {U4 15 cFci c c1RlI TFM t f5 \4 cccl' * ]T

.j) UI I [Ff tZ 49 4 '-cJ,c1 E5 M 5IT1 -CH fkRIT WFIt it tuf 'i I ci i

* T2T ICtcI fl9 1'i1icp {u1 iRi * 7T _ct u I r I1 TT-TT ci f4TW T1T * I TTr TIT .l * fcF

'3lc141 I'.1I'1'-1 TT . cc1 * PqR7

&ri1ft Rb i I 1TZIJ * f zif l) c UI ci I r U t[f l ' -c),d Rb LI I tiff

[45J - RIIc1 cc1 cPI zffi 31CN1' f1T '1111 ciI1I

f~ujqM it 11I14k1 IiThT 3T .lIL1Ic'l.I 19M ACTO Vs. M/s. Power One

Micro Systems (P) Ltd (2010) 29 VST 10 (Raj) * qzFI fT 1-itci

29.04.2009 z4TUM * -IT ZF9 { U ci Rb i I * 1 r{ 7t fffO ZPr {i{ j)guj t[ 31I-c1cc1 T T er t -II1c Ifl1 31IYUI

1tTR *1 3ctc1 [1Ll * iRict, -4T ii * :-

"Similarly, in D.P. Metals' case (supra), it has been held that the penalty is leviable under two circumstances. Firstly, if there was non-compliance of Section 78 (2) (a) of the said Act viz., it was not carrying the documents mentioned in that clause; secondly, if false or forged

IIdI .................4

I

- 4 - 3P)e1 '(1[E - 2124/2010/'J1

documents are submitted, then, penally under Section 75 is leviable. After analysing the situation, the apex Court held that in the case of submission offalse or forged documents the authority is entitled to presume motive to mislead the authorities. However, in such cases that presumption was rebuttable by the assessee on producing the requisite documents referred to in Section 78 (2) (a). If, by mistake, some of the documents were not readily available, the principle of natural justice might require opportunity being given to produce the sdme; meaning thereby, if declaration is produced with blank columns, then, presumption can be drawn that there is intention of tax evasion. If, for any reason, any document including declaration form ST-18A or ST-18AA is not readily available at the time of inspection, then, according to principle of natural justice, opportunity can be given.

I have considered the facts of the present case. In my opinion, neither of the above circumstances is in existence in the present case because the petitioner authority intercepted and checked the vehicle in question at Ratanpur on 04.01.2000. At that time, notified goods was in transit and obviously declaration form ST-18A or ST-i 8AA, as the case may be, was to accompany the goods in question. But, in this case, the contingency is that admittedly on 04.01.2000 no declaration form ST-18AA was in existence in favour of the consignee. Admittedly, as per respondent itself, qfter making all efforts the declaration form ST 18AA was issued on 07.01.2000; meaning thereby, the goods was consigned without any declaration form ST-18AA. The said form was produced along with the reply which is issued on 07.01.2000. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, both the authorities below have committed error while disturbing the finding of the petitioner assessing authority because neither the declaration form was produced at the time of checking nor it was in possession of the consignee on the said date because admittedly the said form was issued on 07.01.2000, subsequent to the date of inspection. Therefore, if the declaration form ST-i 8AA was not in existence on the date of inspection, then, there was no question of sending goods to the consignee without declaration form. In this view of the matter, therefore, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) as well as learned Tax Board committed error while quashing the order passed by the petitioner authority in consonance with the provisions of the Act."

9. 1c,c1 WcPUI TJ 14iRci t 4f 5T1ET HPcl6PiO ii

Ufl t[ 49 1Thi

W-c1 f1FTh:r cIkILI 1 1iict 31.01 .2008 1Tt 1i TMT

3Th: t f5 5Th4 uii tT t-49 iIci 9M

qTzTr TmT QT [2lT l c,c1 ' TT 1 g u I tf iffE i { -ci

[t 2TI 3TT: '3 dRv1Rs1c1 I'1 'I'ilThT 3-E;Er 1i.lIc1'-I

(2010) 29 VST 10 (Raj) !,1cPII # M:gff lcP'I 1 TM 76(6) 3i'-c14c1 wrfkT

3flLUI vfff: ffffiiq 14 3III 3Igftcl f &1 .I-i t

10. r P4 cRci i 4T4 TF4 t, 1cpI

W#r IF t[RIT 'ii I c-I U l L Rc Pi ci 'W frf

ccIIUI M-ff c1I[0 qhull tf 1521T 1i c,c'i' *T2T T

4R fkt 71-4 tR *c) I 41 1FII TFzrT t I R%c1r vwR7 TET

d 1 IIclI' .................5

S

- 5 - 31)e1 T91I - 2124/2010/[

t fij TI 3TR fr -Mqiff R i I cP 31.01.2008 ct

,,ft 5iRT 3ThIT i1i* 3Jf: 11N41R Th5TTh 3I ThId4 RT AC'f 0

Vs. M/s. Power One Micro Systems (P) Ltd (2010) 29 VST 10 (Raj) 1 RI[R{

fti I

11. iiq, &R 5T ITT 3MTsRl f4mT mn fmr

jc1 3T1 ThR I

12. TRf[ I