Semantic Analysis by spaCy
C.T.O.a/E,jodhpur Vs. M/S Bhati Construction
Decided On : Sep-17-2013
Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context$shops2 = $shops['topics'];$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'C.T.O.a/E,jodhpur Vs. M/S Bhati Construction Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 86', (int) 1 => 'Section 12(5', (int) 2 => 'Section 12(5', (int) 3 => 'the Entry Tax Act', (int) 4 => 'the Entry Tax Act', (int) 5 => 'Section 12(5', (int) 6 => 'the Entry Tax Act' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1].IN', (int) 1 => '2].assessing', (int) 2 => '3].assessee', (int) 3 => '4].26', (int) 4 => '8.3.2007' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'JUDICATURE', (int) 1 => 'RAJASTHAN', (int) 2 => 'JUSTICE', (int) 3 => 'D.K.Godara', (int) 4 => 'Falgun Buch', (int) 5 => 'V.K.Mathur', (int) 6 => 'H.S.Tak', (int) 7 => 'Jaisalmer' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'M/S.Bhati Construction', (int) 1 => 'Tax Board', (int) 2 => 'Tax Board', (int) 3 => 'Tax Board', (int) 4 => 'LDO', (int) 5 => 'LDO', (int) 6 => 'the Entry Tax', (int) 7 => 'Tax Board', (int) 8 => 'Tax Board', (int) 9 => 'Tax Board', (int) 10 => 'Apex Court', (int) 11 => 'Sree Krishna Electricals', (int) 12 => 'Tamilnadu & Anr', (int) 13 => 'Tax Update', (int) 14 => 'Tax Board', (int) 15 => 'LDO', (int) 16 => 'Tax Board', (int) 17 => 'Tax Board', (int) 18 => 'Court' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => 'September 17, 2013 :', (int) 1 => '1994', (int) 2 => '14th of June 2012', (int) 3 => '4th of January 2008', (int) 4 => 'the assessment year 2004-2005', (int) 5 => '15th of January 2007', (int) 6 => '4th of January 2008', (int) 7 => '2010', (int) 8 => '9th of March 2007' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1088585', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'C.T.O.a/E,jodhpur', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'C.T.O.a/E,jodhpur Vs. M/S Bhati Construction', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2013-09-17', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>[1].IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR </p>ORDER<p> S.B.CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.181/2012 Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion, Jodhpur versus M/S.Bhati Construction, Jaisalmer DATE OF </p>ORDER<p>: September 17, 2013 ::P R E S E N T:: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.K.LOHRA Mr.D.K.Godara and Mr.Falgun Buch for Mr.V.K.Mathur, for the petitioner.</p><p> Mr.H.S.Tak, for the respondent.</p><p> *** BY THE COURT: The petitioner Revenue has preferred this revision petition under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 assailing the impugned order dated 14th of June 2012 (Annex.3) passed by the learned Tax Board, Ajmer.</p><p> By the aforesaid impugned order, the learned Tax Board has partly allowed the appeal of the Revenue against the appellate order dated 4th of January 2008 and upheld the order passed by the [2].assessing authority to the extent of imposition of penalty.</p><p> The order of the appellate authority, whereby it has set aside the tax liability and the interest fastened on the assessee, is reversed by the learned Tax Board.</p><p> The brief facts, giving rise to this revision petition, are that the respondent-assessee is engaged in the business of diesel and LDO.</p><p> In the assessment year 2004-2005, assessee purchased diesel and LDO and on the said purchase, it availed discount/incentive.</p><p> The assessee paid tax on the amount shown in the invoices and not on the discounted amount.</p><p> At the behest of assessee, no endeavour was made for submission of statement of sale by depositing the entry tax.</p><p> Thereupon, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee by the assessing authority and after considering the reply, the assessing authority vide its order dated 15th of January 2007 imposed tax, penalty and interest upon the assessee.</p><p> The said order of the assessing authority was questioned by the respondent- assessee before the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals).Jodhpur and the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the [3].assessee vide order dated 4th of January 2008 and found that the Entry Tax, interest and penalty imposed on the assessee under Section 12(5) is not in accordance with law, and therefore, the assessment order to the extent of entry tax, interest and penalty is set aside.</p><p> On an appeal preferred against the revenue against the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals).the learned Tax Board has partly allowed the same and maintained the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent of waiver of penalty against the assessee.</p><p> Learned counsel for the Revenue has argued that the learned Tax Board has not examined the matter in proper perspective, and therefore, the order impugned to the extent it has maintained the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) is not sustainable.</p><p> The learned Tax Board, while maintaining the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent of waiver of penalty, has placed reliance on a decision of Apex Court in case of Sree Krishna Electricals versus State of Tamilnadu & Anr.</p><p> [(2010) [4].26 Tax Update 1].The learned Tax Board, while interpreting Section 12(5) of the Entry Tax Act, applying the ratio decidendi of the aforesaid verdict, has recorded a definite finding that the assessee is registered under the Entry Tax Act, and further it has deposited a sum of Rs.2,42,221 on 8.3.2007 for the imported diesel and LDO against the tax liability, and the receipt of the challan was also produced before the Commercial Taxes Officer, Jaisalmer by the assessee on 9th of March 2007, therefore, it is not desirable to invoke Section 12(5) of the Entry Tax Act.</p><p> With this specific finding, the learned Tax Board has maintained the order of the appellate authority to the extent it has set aside the order of imposition of penalty.</p><p> In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Tax Board has not committed any error of law requiring interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.</p><p> The net result of the above discussion is that this revision petition sans merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.</p><p> (P.K.LOHRA).J.</p><p> arora/', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'M/S Bhati Construction', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1088585' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'C.T.O.a/E,jodhpur Vs. M/S Bhati Construction Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 86', (int) 1 => 'Section 12(5', (int) 2 => 'Section 12(5', (int) 3 => 'the Entry Tax Act', (int) 4 => 'the Entry Tax Act', (int) 5 => 'Section 12(5', (int) 6 => 'the Entry Tax Act' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1].IN', (int) 1 => '2].assessing', (int) 2 => '3].assessee', (int) 3 => '4].26', (int) 4 => '8.3.2007' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'JUDICATURE', (int) 1 => 'RAJASTHAN', (int) 2 => 'JUSTICE', (int) 3 => 'D.K.Godara', (int) 4 => 'Falgun Buch', (int) 5 => 'V.K.Mathur', (int) 6 => 'H.S.Tak', (int) 7 => 'Jaisalmer' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'M/S.Bhati Construction', (int) 1 => 'Tax Board', (int) 2 => 'Tax Board', (int) 3 => 'Tax Board', (int) 4 => 'LDO', (int) 5 => 'LDO', (int) 6 => 'the Entry Tax', (int) 7 => 'Tax Board', (int) 8 => 'Tax Board', (int) 9 => 'Tax Board', (int) 10 => 'Apex Court', (int) 11 => 'Sree Krishna Electricals', (int) 12 => 'Tamilnadu & Anr', (int) 13 => 'Tax Update', (int) 14 => 'Tax Board', (int) 15 => 'LDO', (int) 16 => 'Tax Board', (int) 17 => 'Tax Board', (int) 18 => 'Court' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => 'September 17, 2013 :', (int) 1 => '1994', (int) 2 => '14th of June 2012', (int) 3 => '4th of January 2008', (int) 4 => 'the assessment year 2004-2005', (int) 5 => '15th of January 2007', (int) 6 => '4th of January 2008', (int) 7 => '2010', (int) 8 => '9th of March 2007' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1088585', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'C.T.O.a/E,jodhpur', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'C.T.O.a/E,jodhpur Vs. M/S Bhati Construction', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2013-09-17', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>[1].IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR </p>ORDER<p> S.B.CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.181/2012 Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion, Jodhpur versus M/S.Bhati Construction, Jaisalmer DATE OF </p>ORDER<p>: September 17, 2013 ::P R E S E N T:: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.K.LOHRA Mr.D.K.Godara and Mr.Falgun Buch for Mr.V.K.Mathur, for the petitioner.</p><p> Mr.H.S.Tak, for the respondent.</p><p> *** BY THE COURT: The petitioner Revenue has preferred this revision petition under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 assailing the impugned order dated 14th of June 2012 (Annex.3) passed by the learned Tax Board, Ajmer.</p><p> By the aforesaid impugned order, the learned Tax Board has partly allowed the appeal of the Revenue against the appellate order dated 4th of January 2008 and upheld the order passed by the [2].assessing authority to the extent of imposition of penalty.</p><p> The order of the appellate authority, whereby it has set aside the tax liability and the interest fastened on the assessee, is reversed by the learned Tax Board.</p><p> The brief facts, giving rise to this revision petition, are that the respondent-assessee is engaged in the business of diesel and LDO.</p><p> In the assessment year 2004-2005, assessee purchased diesel and LDO and on the said purchase, it availed discount/incentive.</p><p> The assessee paid tax on the amount shown in the invoices and not on the discounted amount.</p><p> At the behest of assessee, no endeavour was made for submission of statement of sale by depositing the entry tax.</p><p> Thereupon, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee by the assessing authority and after considering the reply, the assessing authority vide its order dated 15th of January 2007 imposed tax, penalty and interest upon the assessee.</p><p> The said order of the assessing authority was questioned by the respondent- assessee before the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals).Jodhpur and the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the [3].assessee vide order dated 4th of January 2008 and found that the Entry Tax, interest and penalty imposed on the assessee under Section 12(5) is not in accordance with law, and therefore, the assessment order to the extent of entry tax, interest and penalty is set aside.</p><p> On an appeal preferred against the revenue against the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals).the learned Tax Board has partly allowed the same and maintained the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent of waiver of penalty against the assessee.</p><p> Learned counsel for the Revenue has argued that the learned Tax Board has not examined the matter in proper perspective, and therefore, the order impugned to the extent it has maintained the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) is not sustainable.</p><p> The learned Tax Board, while maintaining the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent of waiver of penalty, has placed reliance on a decision of Apex Court in case of Sree Krishna Electricals versus State of Tamilnadu & Anr.</p><p> [(2010) [4].26 Tax Update 1].The learned Tax Board, while interpreting Section 12(5) of the Entry Tax Act, applying the ratio decidendi of the aforesaid verdict, has recorded a definite finding that the assessee is registered under the Entry Tax Act, and further it has deposited a sum of Rs.2,42,221 on 8.3.2007 for the imported diesel and LDO against the tax liability, and the receipt of the challan was also produced before the Commercial Taxes Officer, Jaisalmer by the assessee on 9th of March 2007, therefore, it is not desirable to invoke Section 12(5) of the Entry Tax Act.</p><p> With this specific finding, the learned Tax Board has maintained the order of the appellate authority to the extent it has set aside the order of imposition of penalty.</p><p> In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Tax Board has not committed any error of law requiring interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.</p><p> The net result of the above discussion is that this revision petition sans merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.</p><p> (P.K.LOHRA).J.</p><p> arora/', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'M/S Bhati Construction', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '1088585' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'C.T.O.a/E,jodhpur Vs. M/S Bhati Construction Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 86', (int) 1 => 'Section 12(5', (int) 2 => 'Section 12(5', (int) 3 => 'the Entry Tax Act', (int) 4 => 'the Entry Tax Act', (int) 5 => 'Section 12(5', (int) 6 => 'the Entry Tax Act' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1].IN', (int) 1 => '2].assessing', (int) 2 => '3].assessee', (int) 3 => '4].26', (int) 4 => '8.3.2007' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'JUDICATURE', (int) 1 => 'RAJASTHAN', (int) 2 => 'JUSTICE', (int) 3 => 'D.K.Godara', (int) 4 => 'Falgun Buch', (int) 5 => 'V.K.Mathur', (int) 6 => 'H.S.Tak', (int) 7 => 'Jaisalmer' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'M/S.Bhati Construction', (int) 1 => 'Tax Board', (int) 2 => 'Tax Board', (int) 3 => 'Tax Board', (int) 4 => 'LDO', (int) 5 => 'LDO', (int) 6 => 'the Entry Tax', (int) 7 => 'Tax Board', (int) 8 => 'Tax Board', (int) 9 => 'Tax Board', (int) 10 => 'Apex Court', (int) 11 => 'Sree Krishna Electricals', (int) 12 => 'Tamilnadu & Anr', (int) 13 => 'Tax Update', (int) 14 => 'Tax Board', (int) 15 => 'LDO', (int) 16 => 'Tax Board', (int) 17 => 'Tax Board', (int) 18 => 'Court' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => 'September 17, 2013 :', (int) 1 => '1994', (int) 2 => '14th of June 2012', (int) 3 => '4th of January 2008', (int) 4 => 'the assessment year 2004-2005', (int) 5 => '15th of January 2007', (int) 6 => '4th of January 2008', (int) 7 => '2010', (int) 8 => '9th of March 2007' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1088585', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'C.T.O.a/E,jodhpur', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'C.T.O.a/E,jodhpur Vs. M/S Bhati Construction', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2013-09-17', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>[1].IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR </p>ORDER<p> S.B.CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.181/2012 Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion, Jodhpur versus M/S.Bhati Construction, Jaisalmer DATE OF </p>ORDER<p>: September 17, 2013 ::P R E S E N T:: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.K.LOHRA Mr.D.K.Godara and Mr.Falgun Buch for Mr.V.K.Mathur, for the petitioner.</p><p> Mr.H.S.Tak, for the respondent.</p><p> *** BY THE COURT: The petitioner Revenue has preferred this revision petition under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 assailing the impugned order dated 14th of June 2012 (Annex.3) passed by the learned Tax Board, Ajmer.</p><p> By the aforesaid impugned order, the learned Tax Board has partly allowed the appeal of the Revenue against the appellate order dated 4th of January 2008 and upheld the order passed by the [2].assessing authority to the extent of imposition of penalty.</p><p> The order of the appellate authority, whereby it has set aside the tax liability and the interest fastened on the assessee, is reversed by the learned Tax Board.</p><p> The brief facts, giving rise to this revision petition, are that the respondent-assessee is engaged in the business of diesel and LDO.</p><p> In the assessment year 2004-2005, assessee purchased diesel and LDO and on the said purchase, it availed discount/incentive.</p><p> The assessee paid tax on the amount shown in the invoices and not on the discounted amount.</p><p> At the behest of assessee, no endeavour was made for submission of statement of sale by depositing the entry tax.</p><p> Thereupon, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee by the assessing authority and after considering the reply, the assessing authority vide its order dated 15th of January 2007 imposed tax, penalty and interest upon the assessee.</p><p> The said order of the assessing authority was questioned by the respondent- assessee before the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals).Jodhpur and the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the [3].assessee vide order dated 4th of January 2008 and found that the Entry Tax, interest and penalty imposed on the assessee under Section 12(5) is not in accordance with law, and therefore, the assessment order to the extent of entry tax, interest and penalty is set aside.</p><p> On an appeal preferred against the revenue against the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals).the learned Tax Board has partly allowed the same and maintained the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent of waiver of penalty against the assessee.</p><p> Learned counsel for the Revenue has argued that the learned Tax Board has not examined the matter in proper perspective, and therefore, the order impugned to the extent it has maintained the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) is not sustainable.</p><p> The learned Tax Board, while maintaining the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent of waiver of penalty, has placed reliance on a decision of Apex Court in case of Sree Krishna Electricals versus State of Tamilnadu & Anr.</p><p> [(2010) [4].26 Tax Update 1].The learned Tax Board, while interpreting Section 12(5) of the Entry Tax Act, applying the ratio decidendi of the aforesaid verdict, has recorded a definite finding that the assessee is registered under the Entry Tax Act, and further it has deposited a sum of Rs.2,42,221 on 8.3.2007 for the imported diesel and LDO against the tax liability, and the receipt of the challan was also produced before the Commercial Taxes Officer, Jaisalmer by the assessee on 9th of March 2007, therefore, it is not desirable to invoke Section 12(5) of the Entry Tax Act.</p><p> With this specific finding, the learned Tax Board has maintained the order of the appellate authority to the extent it has set aside the order of imposition of penalty.</p><p> In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Tax Board has not committed any error of law requiring interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.</p><p> The net result of the above discussion is that this revision petition sans merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.</p><p> (P.K.LOHRA).J.</p><p> arora/', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'M/S Bhati Construction', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1088585' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'C.T.O.a/E,jodhpur Vs. M/S Bhati Construction Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'Section 86', (int) 1 => 'Section 12(5', (int) 2 => 'Section 12(5', (int) 3 => 'the Entry Tax Act', (int) 4 => 'the Entry Tax Act', (int) 5 => 'Section 12(5', (int) 6 => 'the Entry Tax Act' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1].IN', (int) 1 => '2].assessing', (int) 2 => '3].assessee', (int) 3 => '4].26', (int) 4 => '8.3.2007' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'JUDICATURE', (int) 1 => 'RAJASTHAN', (int) 2 => 'JUSTICE', (int) 3 => 'D.K.Godara', (int) 4 => 'Falgun Buch', (int) 5 => 'V.K.Mathur', (int) 6 => 'H.S.Tak', (int) 7 => 'Jaisalmer' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'M/S.Bhati Construction', (int) 1 => 'Tax Board', (int) 2 => 'Tax Board', (int) 3 => 'Tax Board', (int) 4 => 'LDO', (int) 5 => 'LDO', (int) 6 => 'the Entry Tax', (int) 7 => 'Tax Board', (int) 8 => 'Tax Board', (int) 9 => 'Tax Board', (int) 10 => 'Apex Court', (int) 11 => 'Sree Krishna Electricals', (int) 12 => 'Tamilnadu & Anr', (int) 13 => 'Tax Update', (int) 14 => 'Tax Board', (int) 15 => 'LDO', (int) 16 => 'Tax Board', (int) 17 => 'Tax Board', (int) 18 => 'Court' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => 'September 17, 2013 :', (int) 1 => '1994', (int) 2 => '14th of June 2012', (int) 3 => '4th of January 2008', (int) 4 => 'the assessment year 2004-2005', (int) 5 => '15th of January 2007', (int) 6 => '4th of January 2008', (int) 7 => '2010', (int) 8 => '9th of March 2007' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1088585', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'C.T.O.a/E,jodhpur', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'C.T.O.a/E,jodhpur Vs. M/S Bhati Construction', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Rajasthan Jodhpur', 'court_type' => 'HC', 'decidedon' => '2013-09-17', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => null, 'judgement' => '<p>[1].IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR </p>ORDER<p> S.B.CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.181/2012 Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion, Jodhpur versus M/S.Bhati Construction, Jaisalmer DATE OF </p>ORDER<p>: September 17, 2013 ::P R E S E N T:: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.K.LOHRA Mr.D.K.Godara and Mr.Falgun Buch for Mr.V.K.Mathur, for the petitioner.</p><p> Mr.H.S.Tak, for the respondent.</p><p> *** BY THE COURT: The petitioner Revenue has preferred this revision petition under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 assailing the impugned order dated 14th of June 2012 (Annex.3) passed by the learned Tax Board, Ajmer.</p><p> By the aforesaid impugned order, the learned Tax Board has partly allowed the appeal of the Revenue against the appellate order dated 4th of January 2008 and upheld the order passed by the [2].assessing authority to the extent of imposition of penalty.</p><p> The order of the appellate authority, whereby it has set aside the tax liability and the interest fastened on the assessee, is reversed by the learned Tax Board.</p><p> The brief facts, giving rise to this revision petition, are that the respondent-assessee is engaged in the business of diesel and LDO.</p><p> In the assessment year 2004-2005, assessee purchased diesel and LDO and on the said purchase, it availed discount/incentive.</p><p> The assessee paid tax on the amount shown in the invoices and not on the discounted amount.</p><p> At the behest of assessee, no endeavour was made for submission of statement of sale by depositing the entry tax.</p><p> Thereupon, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee by the assessing authority and after considering the reply, the assessing authority vide its order dated 15th of January 2007 imposed tax, penalty and interest upon the assessee.</p><p> The said order of the assessing authority was questioned by the respondent- assessee before the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals).Jodhpur and the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the [3].assessee vide order dated 4th of January 2008 and found that the Entry Tax, interest and penalty imposed on the assessee under Section 12(5) is not in accordance with law, and therefore, the assessment order to the extent of entry tax, interest and penalty is set aside.</p><p> On an appeal preferred against the revenue against the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals).the learned Tax Board has partly allowed the same and maintained the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent of waiver of penalty against the assessee.</p><p> Learned counsel for the Revenue has argued that the learned Tax Board has not examined the matter in proper perspective, and therefore, the order impugned to the extent it has maintained the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) is not sustainable.</p><p> The learned Tax Board, while maintaining the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent of waiver of penalty, has placed reliance on a decision of Apex Court in case of Sree Krishna Electricals versus State of Tamilnadu & Anr.</p><p> [(2010) [4].26 Tax Update 1].The learned Tax Board, while interpreting Section 12(5) of the Entry Tax Act, applying the ratio decidendi of the aforesaid verdict, has recorded a definite finding that the assessee is registered under the Entry Tax Act, and further it has deposited a sum of Rs.2,42,221 on 8.3.2007 for the imported diesel and LDO against the tax liability, and the receipt of the challan was also produced before the Commercial Taxes Officer, Jaisalmer by the assessee on 9th of March 2007, therefore, it is not desirable to invoke Section 12(5) of the Entry Tax Act.</p><p> With this specific finding, the learned Tax Board has maintained the order of the appellate authority to the extent it has set aside the order of imposition of penalty.</p><p> In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Tax Board has not committed any error of law requiring interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.</p><p> The net result of the above discussion is that this revision petition sans merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.</p><p> (P.K.LOHRA).J.</p><p> arora/', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'M/S Bhati Construction', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '1088585' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/' $shops2 = nullinclude - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
LAW: Section 86, Section 12(5, Section 12(5, the Entry Tax Act, the Entry Tax Act, Section 12(5, the Entry Tax Act
CARDINAL: 1].IN, 2].assessing, 3].assessee, 4].26, 8.3.2007
PERSON: JUDICATURE, RAJASTHAN, JUSTICE, D.K.Godara, Falgun Buch, V.K.Mathur, H.S.Tak, Jaisalmer
ORG: M/S.Bhati Construction, Tax Board, Tax Board, Tax Board, LDO, LDO, the Entry Tax, Tax Board, Tax Board, Tax Board, Apex Court, Sree Krishna Electricals, Tamilnadu & Anr, Tax Update, Tax Board, LDO, Tax Board, Tax Board, Court
DATE: September 17, 2013 :, 1994, 14th of June 2012, 4th of January 2008, the assessment year 2004-2005, 15th of January 2007, 4th of January 2008, 2010, 9th of March 2007