1 S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 126/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 126/2008 Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Flying Squad, Alwar Versus M/s. Arun Manufacturing Service Pvt. Behror (Alwar). Date: 21.10.2010 Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain,J. Mr. A. Kaushik on behalf of Mr. R.B. Mathur, for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Singhal, for the respondent. BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Vehicle No. RJ-02G-3900 was checked on 12.05.2000, all the required documents as per provisions of Section 78(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994(hereinafter referred as 'the Act of 1994') relating to goods were available at the time of checking of vehicle, except Declaration Form ST-18A. Assessing officer was of the view that Form ST-18A was not produced, therefore, there is a breach of Section 78(2), therefore, he issued a notice to levy penalty to the assessee. In reply to show cause notice, 2 S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 126/2008 assessee submitted Declaration Form ST-18A, however, assessing officer vide its order dated 12.05.2000 levied penalty under Section 78(5) of the Act of 1994 @ 30% on the value of goods i.e. Rs. 3,76,420/- amounting to Rs. 1,12,926/-. 3. Being aggrieved with the same, an appeal was preferred by assessee, which was allowed by Deputy Commissioner(Appeals) vide order dated 03.05.2001. Revenue preferred second appeal before Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 27.08.2002, which has been impugned in this revision petition preferred on behalf of the Revenue. 4. I have considered the submissions of both the parties advanced before me. 5. So far as the facts of the case are concerned both the parties admitted that all the required documents, except Declaration Form ST- 18A, were available at the time of checking of the vehicle. Declaration Form ST-18A was also produced by the assessee before assessing officer alongwith reply to show cause notice issued by assessing officer. 6. Provisions of Section 78(5) and Section 78(2)(a) of the Act of 1994 were considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan & Another Vs. D.P. Metals, reported in (2002) 1 SCC 279 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that 3 S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 126/2008 “If by mistake some of the documents are not readily available at the time of checking, principles of natural justice may require some opportunity being given to produce the same.” 7. Learned Tax Board in its impugned order relied upon Kaluram Madangopal's case(2000 Vol. 4 RLW Raj 338) wherein this Court held that if any document or a declaration, which could not be produced at the time of checking, was produced later on during the course of inquiry, it would lead to substantial compliance of the statutory provisions of law. Learned Tax Board has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of D.P. Metals (supra). 8. There is no dispute in between both the parties in the present case that Declaration Form ST-18A was submitted before assessing officer alongwith reply to show cause notice i.e. before passing the assessment order. In these circumstances, in my view, Deputy Commissioner(Appeals) as well as Tax Board both have rightly set aside the penalty imposed against the assessee under Section 78(5) of the Act of 1994. 9. The legal question involved in the present case has already been decided by this Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases 4 S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 126/2008 referred above, therefore I do not find any reason to interfere in the orders passed by both the appellate authorities. 10. It is a settled law that revision petition under Section 86 of the Act of 1994, before this Court, lies on a question of law. The present matter relates to question of facts and there is concurrent finding of facts by two appellate authorities below, which cannot be interferred with by this Court in revisional jurisdiction. 11. In view of above discussions, I do not find any merit in this revision petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. (Narendra Kumar Jain),J. Manoj, Item No.6.