STR-274/2008-C.T.O., Circle B, Bhilwara Vs. M/s Vijay Joshi, Bhilwara Judgment dt.5.2.10 1/2 S.B. CIVIL (SALES TAX) REVISION NO.274/2008 C.T.O., Circle B, Bhilwara Vs. M/s Vijay Joshi, Bhilwara. Date of order : 5th February, 2010 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. Vineet Mathur with Mr. Lokesh Mathur for the petitioner- Revenue. Mr. Dinesh Mehta for the respondent-assessee. ------- 1. Both the learned counsels agree that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in CTO, Nimbahera Vs. Shri Mirbahadur – (2010) 26 Tax Up-date page 3 in which it was held as under:- 8. After hearing learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that there was no basis available with the Tax Board to treat the respondent assessee as a 'casual trader' of the motor vehicle in question. It was a single transaction of purchase of motor vehicle not in the nature of business at all. The very definition of 'casual trader' envisages 'occasional transactions of a business nature' involving buying and selling of the goods. Therefore, the plurality of the transactions is a must for treating anybody as a casual trader. Admittedly in the present case, it was a single transaction and, therefore, no question of treating the respondent assessee a 'casual trader' could arise. Therefore, the question of applying the limitation under Section 31(5) of the Act which STR-274/2008-C.T.O., Circle B, Bhilwara Vs. M/s Vijay Joshi, Bhilwara Judgment dt.5.2.10 2/2 deals with the assessment in case of 'casual trader' does not arise. Since the respondent assessee admittedly did not furnish the form No.ET-1 required to establish the case of personal user by the respondent assessee, therefore, the question of any exemption from levy of entry tax also could not arise in the present case. The learned assessing authority was, therefore, justified in framing the assessment in question on 5.6.2002 after giving a notice in this regard dated 13.2.2002 to the respondent assessee. The said assessment order produced as Annex.1 in the said revision petition clearly stipulates that the respondent assessee had neither got issued the form No.ET-1 nor furnished any such form to the Assessing Authority. This Court is at loss to understand how the Tax Board could treat the respondent assessee as a 'casual trader' just for askance without any evidence being there in this regard and hold the assessment to be time barred. The impugned order of Tax Board, therefore, cannot be sustained.” 2. Consequently, this revision petition is allowed and the order of Tax Board is set aside. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.117 babulal/