1 S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 6/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 6/2010 Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Bharatpur Versus Shri Govind Lal. Date: 20.10.2010 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. Assessing officer vide its assessment order dated 19.02.2005 levied penalty under Section 78(10-A) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994(hereinafter referred as 'the Act of 1994') for so-called violation of provisions of Section 78(2)(b) of the Act of 1994. 3. Being aggrieved with the assessment order, appeal was preferred by the assessee, which was allowed by Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 21.05.2005. Order of Deputy Commissioner(Appeals) was upheld by Rajasthan Tax Board while dismissing the appeal of the assessing officer vide judgment dated 2 S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 6/2010 15.06.2009, which is under challenge in this revision petition preferred on behalf of the Revenue. 4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that it was a duty of in-charge of the vehicle to stop the vehicle at the check post and to produce the documents for verification. Since vehicle was not stopped, therefore, provisions of Section 78(2)(b) of the Act of 1994 were attracted and assessing officer was right in levying the penalty. He further contended that Deputy Commissioner(Appeals) as well as Rajasthan Tax Board both committed illegality in setting aside the assessment order. 5. Deputy Commissioner(Appeals) as well Rajasthan Tax Board both have observed that assessee filed his reply wherein it was specifically mentioned that he was having all the required documents as per Section 78(2)(b) and the same were produced when the vehicle was stopped and checked. No irregularity was found in the documents. Assessee in his reply further explained that there was no barrier on the check post, therefore, he was not aware that vehicle was to be stopped and documents were to be produced there. Since documents were complete and there was no intention of the assessee to 3 S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 6/2010 evade the tax, Deputy commissioner(Appeals) as well as Rajasthan Tax Board both rightly accepted the explanation of the assessee and came to a conclusion that penalty was not leviable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. No perversity has been pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner in the impugned order. 6. Revision petition before this court is maintainable only on the question of law and in my view, no question of law is involved in the present revision petition, therefore, the same is dismissed in limine. (Narendra Kumar Jain),J. Manoj, Item No.5.