[1] SB SALES TAX REVISION NO.86/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. SALES TAX REVISION NO.86/2010 ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER, BHIWADI Vs. M/s RAJVEER SINGH DATE OF ORDER : 27.09.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. R.B. Mathur, for the petitioner. **** Heard learned counsel for petitioner. This revision petition on behalf of the Department under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 read with Section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 is directed against the impugned judgment dated 16.07.2009 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer in Appeal No. 4206/2005/Alwar, whereby the second appeal filed by petitioner was dismissed. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 13.03.2005, a vehicle No. HR-38-J- 4744 was checked by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Flying Squad near Regency Hotel in Bhiwadi and on production of relevant documents by incharge of vehicle, it came to the notice of the Assessing Authority [2] SB SALES TAX REVISION NO.86/2010 that documents do not bear seal of check post. In these circumstances, he imposed a penalty against the assessee under Section 78 (10-A) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (for short' the Act of 1994') vide order dated 15.03.2005. Being aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred first appeal, which was allowed by the First Appellate Authority vide order dated 04.05.2005. Thereafter the Department filed second appeal, which was dismissed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer vide impugned judgment. Submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that both the Appellate Authorities have committed an illegality in setting aside the order levying penalty by the Assessing Authority, whereas penalty under sub-Section 10-A of Section 78 of the Act of 1994 was rightly imposed in the present case as documents were not bearing the seal of check post. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for petitioner in the light of reasons assigned by both the Appellate Authorities for setting aside the assessment order passed by the Assessing Authority levying penalty under Section 78(10-A) of the Act of 1994. [3] SB SALES TAX REVISION NO.86/2010 The Appellate Authority has observed that explanation of assessee was, that the documents were produced on check post and after checking the same, they were returned to him, he could not see whether any seal has been put on these documents or not. It is relevant to observe that entry of document at check post is not required. Both the Appellate Authorities accepted the explanation of assessee. Apart from above, it is relevant to mention that provisions of sub-Section 10-A of Section 78 will be attracted where it is found that driver or the person incharge of the vehicle or the carrier abstains from bringing or stopping vehicle or carrier, at the nearest check post as provided under clause (b) of sub-section(2). The case of the Department is that the vehicle in dispute was checked by the Flying Squad near Regency Hotel in Bhiwadi and seal of check post was not found on the documents. It is not the case of the Department that the driver or the person incharge of the vehicle abstained from bringing or stopping vehicle at the nearest check post. In these circumstances, I do not find any force in the submission of learned counsel for petitioner. [4] SB SALES TAX REVISION NO.86/2010 It is also relevant to mention that revision to this Court lies where it involves a question of law. In my view, no question of law is involved in the present case. There is concurrent finding of fact by the First Appellate Authority as well Second Appellate Authority about the explanation furnished by the assessee, which cannot be interfered with by this Court in revisional jurisdiction. In view of above discussions, I do not find any merit in the revision petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. /KKC/ [5] SB SALES TAX REVISION NO.86/2010 S.B. CIVIL MISC. STAY APPLICATION NO. 1892/2010 IN S.B. SALES TAX REVISION NO.86/2010 ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER, BHIWADI Vs. M/s RAJVEER SINGH DATE OF ORDER : 27.09.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. R.B. Mathur, for the petitioner. **** Since revision petition has been dismissed, therefore, the stay application does not survive and the same also stands dismissed. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. /KKC/