STR-117/09-Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Check Post, Ratanpur, Dungarpur Vs. M/s Globe Cargo Services, Rakot (Gujrat). Judgment dt.25.3.10 1/2 S.B. CIVIL (SALES TAX) REVISION NO.117/2009 Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Check Post, Ratanpur, Dungarpur Vs. M/s Globe Cargo Services, Rakot (Gujrat). Date of order : 25th March, 2010 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. V.K. Mathur with Mr. Vipul Singhvi for the petitioner-Revenue. Mr. Sajeev Johari for the respondent-assessee. ------- 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 9.7.2008 passed by learned Tax Board whereby both the appellate authorities below held that the penalty under Section 78(5) of the RST Act could not be imposed on the respondent assessee since the documents as required by Section 78(2) of the Act duly accompanied the goods found to be in transit. 2. The mistake in accompanying declaration in form No.18A sought to be made a basis for penalty by the Assessing Authority which have been discussed in detail by the appellate authority i.e. Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) at page 2 of his order are of the nature like the Bill No.00268 dated 10.2.2005 appeared to be written as '288' in form No.ST 18 A and the amount of Bill which was also found at the spot and was for a sum of Rs.1,13,461.00 was written in form No.18A as Rs.11,346/-. The appellate authorities below have held that these errors even if can be said to be one are of STR-117/09-Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Check Post, Ratanpur, Dungarpur Vs. M/s Globe Cargo Services, Rakot (Gujrat). Judgment dt.25.3.10 2/2 clerical nature and since the documents in question found with the goods in transit were not found to be false or forged which is mandate of Section 78 (5) of the Act, no penalty under Section 78(5) of the Act could be imposed for such a possible clerical human error. 3. In the opinion of this Court, these are the findings of fact which do not give rise to any question of law under Section 86 of the Act and the authorities below appear to have rightly held that no such penalty was imposable in the present facts and circumstances of the case. 4. In these circumstances, there is no force in this revision petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.94 babulal/