1 S.B. SALES TAX REVISION NO. 147/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER S. B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 147/2010 Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Alwar Versus M/s. Road Transport Corporation. Date of Order: 19.11.2010 Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain,J. Mr. A. Kaushik on behalf of Mr. R.B. Mathur, for the petitioner. BY THE COURT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The vehicle in dispute was checked by assessing officer and on production of documents, it was found that documents were not bearing the seal of any check post of Commercial Taxes Department of the State, therefore, assessing officer proceeded on the presumption that documents were not produced before check post and assessee violated mandatory provisions of Section 78(10-A) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1994') and consequently, after issuing show cause notice, imposed penalty under Section 78 (10-A) of the Act of 1994 vide order order dated 10.05.2004. 2 S.B. SALES TAX REVISION NO. 147/2010 3. Assessee preferred an appeal, which was allowed by the Deputy Commissioner(Appeals) vide order dated 01.04.2007. Thereafter, assessing officer preferred an appeal before Rajasthan Tax Board, but the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 24.09.2009, which is under challenge in this revision petition preferred on behalf of the assessing officer. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that assessing officer was fully justified in levying the penalty under Section 78(10-A) of the Act of 1994 and Deputy Commissioner(Appeals) as well as Rajasthan Tax Board both committed an illegality in setting aside penalty order. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned consel for the petitioner in the light of reasons assigned by both the appellate authorities for setting aside the penalty order passed by assessing officer. 6. There is no dispute in the present case that all the relevant documents were available at the time of checking of vehicle. The Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan & Another Vs. Tajiander Pal, reported 3 S.B. SALES TAX REVISION NO. 147/2010 in (2003) 6 Tax Update Part 3 Page No. 84 examined the provisions of Section 78(2), (5) and (10-A) of the Act of 1994 and held that provisions of Section 78(10-A) of the Act are directory and not mandatory in nature, as the word “may” has been used in sub-Section (10-A) of Section 78 of the Act of 1994. The Division Bench further affirmed the view of the learned Single Judge that in case all the requisite documents were present at the time of checking of the vehicle, then intention to evade tax can not be inferred. 7. In these circumstances, I find that present case is fully covered by aforesaid judgment delivered by Division Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthan & Another Vs Tajiander Pal(supra). 8. I do not find any illegality in the orders passed by both the appellate authorities. No question of law is involved in this revision petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. (Narendra Kumar Jain),J. Manoj, Item No.14.