ACTO, Ward-IV, Balotra, Barmer Vs. M/s Rajaram Automobiles v. M/s Rajaram Automobiles, Jodhpur Road, Balotra, Barmer
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Accordingly, the present revision petition of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith. (Dr. VINEET KOTHARI), J. DJ/- 6
Judgment
Mr. V.K. Mathur, for the petitioner- Revenue. Mr. Ashok Chhangani, for the respondent-Assessee. BY THE COURT (ORAL): - -
#1. The learned Tax Board by the impugned order dated
30.12.2002 has upheld the order of setting aside the penalty under Section 77 (8) of the RST Act, 1994, of Rs.2,15,532/- on the ground of alleged discrepancies in the stocks. The learned Tax Board being a final fact finding body held that the confessional statement recorded by the Assessing Authority of one Lumbaram, who was neither the owner of the assessee firm, nor authorized to give such confessional statement. Such penalty could not be imposed upon the assessee-firm. The owner of the assessee-firm was one Sh. Jugraj, whose statements were never recorded by the assessing authority, The relevant findings of the learned Tax Board is quoted herein below for ready reference: S.B. Civil (ST) Revision Petition No.549/2005 ACTO, Ward-IV, Balotra, Barmer Vs. M/s Rajaram Automobiles Order, Tuesday, 19/05/2015. 2 of 3 “उभयपक(cid:6) क(cid:9) बहस स(cid:13)न(cid:15) गय(cid:15) पस(cid:19)(cid:13)(cid:19) (cid:19)क(cid:20) पर व(cid:23)च(cid:25)र ककय(cid:25) गय(cid:25) (cid:19)थ(cid:25) उपलब(cid:30) ररक(cid:25)र! क(cid:25) अ(cid:23)ल#कन ककय(cid:25) ग(cid:25)य। पस(cid:19)(cid:13)(cid:19) अप(cid:15)ल क% अन(cid:13)स(cid:25)र वय(cid:23)स(cid:25)य क(cid:25) म(cid:25)ललक श(cid:15) ज(cid:13)गर(cid:25)ज ह+ जबकक कर नन(cid:30)(cid:25)-रण अध(cid:30)क(cid:25)र0 क% आद%श म4 वय(cid:23)स(cid:25)य क(cid:25) म(cid:25)ललक श(cid:15) ल(cid:13)मब(cid:25)र(cid:25)म क# ब(cid:19)(cid:25)य(cid:25) गय(cid:25) ह+। श(cid:25)सस(cid:19) पत(cid:25)(cid:23)ल0 क% प%ज 9 पर उपलब(cid:30) बय(cid:25)न भ(cid:15) श(cid:15) ल(cid:13)मब(cid:25)र(cid:25)म क% ह0 ह8 और उस(cid:15) न% द#ष स(cid:23)(cid:15)क(cid:25)र#क< क(cid:9) ह+ ज%(cid:25) कक न(cid:25) (cid:19)# वय(cid:23)स(cid:25)य क(cid:25) म(cid:25)ललक ह+ और न(cid:25)ह0 (cid:23)ह अध(cid:30)क= (cid:19) वयक< ह+ अ(cid:19): श(cid:15) ल(cid:13)मब(cid:25)र(cid:25)म द(cid:25)र(cid:25) क(cid:9) गई द#ष क(cid:9) स(cid:23)(cid:15)क(cid:25)र#क< क# व(cid:23)ध(cid:30)क नह0@ म(cid:25)न(cid:25) ज(cid:25) सक(cid:19)(cid:25) ह+। श(cid:15) ल(cid:13)मब(cid:25)र(cid:25)म क% बय(cid:25)न म4 एक ओर (cid:19)# च(cid:25)लC (cid:23)ष- क(cid:9) ल%ख(cid:25) प(cid:13)स(cid:19)क4 आरमभ करन(cid:25) ह0 नह0@ ब(cid:19)(cid:25)य(cid:25) ग(cid:25)य ह+ दCसर0 ओर इनह0 बय(cid:25)न(cid:6) म% ल%ख(cid:25) प(cid:13)स(cid:19)क% ए(cid:23)@ भGन(cid:19)क सतय(cid:25)पन क% अन(cid:13)स(cid:25)र म(cid:25)ल क(cid:9) ससथन(cid:19) ब(cid:19)(cid:25)य(cid:15) गय(cid:15) ह+ ज# वय(cid:23)ह(cid:25)ररक नह0@ ह+। कर नन(cid:30)(cid:25)-रण अध(cid:30)क(cid:25)र0 न% ल%ख(cid:25) प(cid:13)स(cid:19)क% ए(cid:23)@ भGन(cid:19)क सतय(cid:25)पन पर म(cid:25)ल क(cid:25) अध(cid:30)क ह#न(cid:25) भ(cid:15) पम(cid:25)णण(cid:19) नह0@ ककय(cid:25) ह+ इसललए कर नन(cid:30)(cid:25)-रण अध(cid:30)क(cid:25)र0 क(cid:25) आद%श न (cid:19)# (cid:19)थय(cid:6) क% आ(cid:30)(cid:25)र पर सह0 ह+ और न ह0 व(cid:23)ध(cid:30)क रप स% सह0 ह+। उप(cid:25)य(cid:13)< अप(cid:15)लस न% भ(cid:15) (cid:19)थय(cid:6) ए(cid:23)@ व(cid:23)ध(cid:30)क ससथन(cid:19) क(cid:9) अनद%ख(cid:15) करक% आद%श प(cid:25)रर(cid:19) ककय(cid:25) ह+ अ(cid:19): कर नन(cid:30)(cid:25)-रण अध(cid:30)क(cid:25)र0 ए(cid:23)@ उप(cid:25)य(cid:13)< अप(cid:15)लस क% आद%श(cid:6) क# ननरस(cid:19) कर श(cid:25)सस(cid:19) क# अप(cid:25)स(cid:19) ककय(cid:25) ज(cid:25)(cid:19)(cid:25) ह+। फल(cid:19): वय(cid:23)ह(cid:25)र0 अप(cid:15)ल(cid:25)थN क(cid:9) अप(cid:15)ल स(cid:23)(cid:15)क(cid:25)र क(cid:9) ज(cid:25)(cid:19)(cid:15) ह+। ननण-य स(cid:13)न(cid:25)य(cid:25) गय(cid:25)। Sd/- (बद0 पस(cid:25)द) सदसय"
#2. In the case of Kalra Glue Factor Vs. Sales Tax Tribunal and Ors. reported in (1987) 167 ITR 498 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: - S.B. Civil (ST) Revision Petition No.549/2005 ACTO, Ward-IV, Balotra, Barmer Vs. M/s Rajaram Automobiles Order, Tuesday, 19/05/2015. 3 of 3 “We allow this appeal solely on the ground that the statement of Banke Lal which was not tested by cross-examination was used in order to reach the conclusion that the transaction was an inter-State sale. We are told that Banke Lal has now died. Under the circumstances, we set aside the order of the High Court as also of the Sales Tax Tribunal and remit back the matter to the Sales Tax Tribunal at Meerut. It will be open to the appellant to produce the documents which the appellant has offered to produce before us. The Tribunal will permit the appellant to produce the documents subject to being satisfied the genuineness thereof and to pronounce upon the reliability of the documents and the impact of it on the matter in issue.”
#3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner- Revenue, and the respondent- Assessee, this Court is satisfied that the learned Tax Board has not committed any error in allowing the Assessee's appeal and in view of Apex Court decision in the case fo Kalra Glue Factor (supra), no interference is called for and the revision petition of Revenue deserves to be dismissed.
#4. Accordingly, the present revision petition of the Revenue is hereby dismissed. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith. (Dr. VINEET KOTHARI), J. DJ/- 6
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.