ST Revision 1303/03 - ACTO,UdaipurVs.M/s Hindustan Level Ltd. Judgment dt.10.11.08 1/2 S.B. CIVIL (S.T.) REVISION PETITION NO.1303/2003 ACTO, Udaipur Vs. M/s Hindustan Level Ltd. Date of order : 10th November, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. V.K. Mathur with Mr. Lokesh Mathur for the petitioner. Mr. Dinesh Mehta with Mr. Lalit Pareekh for the respondents. --------- 1. This revision petition has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Tax Board dated 28.3.2003 whereby the Tax Board allowed assessee's appeal and quashed the penalty under Section 78(5) of the RST Act, 1994 on the ground that on account of branch transfer of goods by the assessee company on 9.12.1999 the requirement of furnishing form No.ST 18 A could not be insisted upon as the amendment in Rule 53(1)(a) of the RST Rules, 1995 in this regard was made only on 20.3.2000 wherein the requirement of furnishing the form ST 18 A was required for branch transfers as well. The Tax Board, therefore, held that prior to 20.3.2000 the penalty could not be imposed merely because the form number ST 18 A though produced by the respondent-assessee was incompletely filled up though other relevant documents bill and bilty were found to be in order at the time of checking on 9.12.1999. 2. Having heard learned counsels and upon perusal of the order of the Tax Board, this Court finds no question of law to be arising in the present revision petition because prior to amendment in ST Revision 1303/03 - ACTO,UdaipurVs.M/s Hindustan Level Ltd. Judgment dt.10.11.08 2/2 law i.e. in Rule 53(1)(a) of the RST Rules w.e.f. 20.3.2000 making it incumbent upon the assessee to produce form No.ST 18 A in case a branch transfers also, the said requirement could not be insisted upon by the authorities of the respondent department and no penalty for alleged incomplete filling up of the said declaration, ST 18 A could be imposed. The Tax Board was, therefore, justified in setting aside the penalty under Section 78 (5) of the Act. No question of law can be said to be arising out of the said order of the Tax Board. 3. The revision petition of the Revenue is thus found to be devoid of merit. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.32 babulal/-