SBCSALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO.249/2001 AND 250/2001 – CTO BIKANER V/S M/S SUBHASH CHANDRA SURESH CHANDRA : JUDGMENT DTD. 5.2.2009 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. 1. S.B. SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO.249/2001 Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion, Bikaner. versus M/s Subhash Chandra Suresh Chandra, Govindgarh. 2. S.B. SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO.250/2001 Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion, Bikaner. versus M/s Subhash Chandra Suresh Chandra, Govindgarh. PRESENT HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.Rishabh Sancheti, for Mr.V.K. Mathur, for the petitioner. Mr.Sanjeev Johari, for the respondent. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 5th February, 2009. JUDGMENT 1. These revision petitions have been filed by the Revenue being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Tax Board dated SBCSALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO.249/2001 AND 250/2001 – CTO BIKANER V/S M/S SUBHASH CHANDRA SURESH CHANDRA : JUDGMENT DTD. 5.2.2009 2/3 13.7.2000 disposing of two appeals No.564/97/Bkn. And 577/97/Bkn in favour of the respondent – assessee deleting the penalty under Section 22A(7) of the old RST Act, 1954. 2. The Tax Board in its impugned judgment and order has found as a matter of fact that the assessing authority had imposed this penalty without making proper verification of the CST numbers given on the documents produced by the driver of the vehicle at the time of checking, whereas the consignee M/s Darshan Sales Corporation was properly registered with the Commercial Taxes Officer No. IV, City Unit, Ahmedabad and had its godown at K.P. Patel, Katwara, Ahmedabad where the goods passing through State of Rajasthan from Govindgarh (State of Punjab) to Ahmedabad (State of Gujarat) were actually delivered by these two vehicles in question. Both the appellate authorities concurrently found that since the goods were not unloaded in the State of Rajasthan and the documents were also complete in support of transit of goods and the goods were delivered to the consignee at Ahmedabad, the imposition of penalty on the consignor on the mere apprehension without making proper enquiry was unjustified. SBCSALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO.249/2001 AND 250/2001 – CTO BIKANER V/S M/S SUBHASH CHANDRA SURESH CHANDRA : JUDGMENT DTD. 5.2.2009 3/3 3. Having heard the learned counsels, this Court finds no ground to interfere with these findings of facts arrived at concurrently by two Appellate Authorities below. As a matter of fact, no question of law arises in the present revision petition filed by the Revenue as required by Section 86 of the Act of 1994 parallel to Section 15 of the RST Act, 1954. Consequently these revision petitions being devoid of merit are dismissed. No order as to costs. (Dr.VINEET KOTHARI)J. ITEM NO.7 AND 8 Ss/-