31( ci *isi 1584/20154'kI .1111

ccJ

1I.ICP CII1IRTCt)

Alft

ccrIc

qmri YIc

TIT

1Ic'i I')Ufl

I 3{11 [~jico: )- rC,J 2I7

iI' (titr ctc) 9M 1e1 1s?-1I 50/14-15/cP'k.I '.iiFci 31II I-IicP

30.06.2015 {T)C !4*c,c1 it 1T t I

,4cfr7 flQTT 124 T lcPk * f 16IcP clI1IRcP

(fit &rt frthuj iiii) -p --

1'1i4-) 31.07.2008 'iTI.i 'I\t9I4 *I&-1I 8 iici tR c1I'-i -iI

—06/'lc—O925 Tt )RhI cI'1 c1I'I 1 11k-11, 311cIIIc

* frt *cicP k14 M -5FA * T[1 lc),c1 —47 40i

'3f iz trffff

2003 (f'\j:F# 3IT4 &1ifIPT ZFT iiii) m MT 76 (2) i'-iRci PIII 53(1) r

ç r'c4. 1I.1 cpk°I ZffT3i1 i')Iè*i 7t Ri TRill 91èiH t '1Ic'l -iI

—47 I1-1 47'300414047791 1'1ict30.04.2014 cP1-c 1b.ii

TRIT I1,cl Ri TMT * i frrfr 3I1T '31 1CPk t 4d —47

tMl jdcl& #M T hi 3IfRPT it £ThT 76 (6) * 3i cl 1c1 9T1 it

cic'l 1-Icl 1R IIR-c1 . 131434/—, & 21906/— EI . 153340/—mt IT1T

3flI 1iicp 01.05.2014 iitRci Pii \ctc1 !1cPI Ilc1 IPT

* Rc 3Tt1:r &ftr * 3\j

3T71 3II 1110 30.07.2010 '-ltIcl 31

3*ccPI< tI zctcl 31TThT 3flI 1iicp 30.06.2015 31-cj )ct

Izr ciTtl

YIRc1 31II UUç 3Tflf5 f

-2-31i si 1584/2015/cb'ki &ft TT iiTI '-ljel'jI 7cII4 * TTT —47 -i

477300414047791 1'1IcP30.04.2014 45'1 Ct - il'l.c 14T4l 1*c:c1

Rbii TZ1T t, 3tzicTh -LflUc IITT €ift1 It t

c1 (2001) 124 T[ ?I 611 * YRI'lI Th1I ,

fthT 3TfV RT Tffz #rt I1cfr zt

31*c)cpk {I TZ1T t J \3.1cPI T5TT t f5 1I1'1 zc11 lI.1Ie11 * \3crcl

it c'1II 311I' Tf —47 Uc1 f5 !T1 it 3tIcicPc1I •4i• * t

frr ii)i V iri qç((vf 04p ct?lui tR frr niir w-iIPId

f5 iflci 3'1gu c'-it *i 1clI ii * f '- Rci.i * el *clI'ii

cJ-j TIT1t 7T4 tR c116'-i zlIc'lcp * NT c1I3T c,c1 f5Ti1 T1 3T2TtT

c1IcIc1,R 4t c1I1 - 7#I 31T 9-N 31Tl 'F&T 0 I z1cPI 5?TE * f5

gIellI —47 '1-1" 4477300414047791 11IcP30.04.2014 R5'1

'I - 1b.ii litir 7-T,c1 Rbi 11RT * qR IthUT 3T1I5T *

fkiT T[ff TTmm !,cp.<uI )c1I2 r it

I*1 c1I 1F9 ciiPiRy.icp

&T PI'4I IIIcl 3.5.2007 FF vTift )ci -iI-l' icTh

i1r wuq zr;:rF i*1 t.t. (Al 24 L1c1 611) IT *1 1ctI

5r T -iRi 31I?I p3. c UfTh

cpJ it *, fT 31fT *1 34q qi2M * TMOff

411 -1 I'iIT[ 3T TT 1kH tcN-i IC'JI'1 1cI'1 1S1I

190/2012 1I* tr FLII EI'IFH "HI71cP cflPifrcp IcI57 &f,fi)

'-Rci P1.i 1iicp 07.01.2013, ITUA. iii t4Tf FcJ1r1 RSi'i (1'S.1I

3/2011 ki*1 iNlflG1 t4 It i,biii 'i'-icp i1iRic4) z

3T11T5T, 1I'HC1II 4 YIRc1 1IU11 1iicp 27.04.2013 I5'F \3cc1 W\-c1

3T#lF Rt Cl? T PC'1cI 1bii I

3TJ I\YlC 'k &1T 1ii

* 3TTT 31I PT2T cP 52TT 1I f 1ThT

Rci ci !T[ * WRT q u _47 41 fT1UT &fr

f5 9T tR, \3"Hc) YR'I'lI —47 '11-EN 473941-4O47791

Iitcp 30.04.2014 1bIT11T *, SIt

_3-3)çrJ #W 1584/2015/ct')cI

(after thought) * lthur &ftrt jgm M4ftzm z

.ITT 76 (6) * 31c14c1 !TE l9c1 ZFT 30 [II0 VR#cT f 5 I?IIc1 z

dk'1I1c1 fi TMT *, ?i 3F1c1 *i \3- l*cjc1 '3 IcPI'. CP

cj5T PI'I fI I

trT 14I 74t, '3&T IcPI I5T 3I4cvIcpI fkM i IT

aT#c-rT2ffci) it 3i cci f5R T fu 5T 1H4h1N 3TM f j

7M 1lcI !,Ic15'UI 2Zft * ZT71flR qR fthvr ifr rr Fi

tf t-47 3Ttt cPIT IfTfRT19 it 9M

76 (6) * 3ic14ci iiR-ci 1 tZ 31k'uIci fi TFM *, 1i'icp')

391thI 31I 1iIC1) 30.06.2015 T5'1 iRci 1T1T TUT * I

5*cVIcl cPUI 11-€1T LIIc1 tR '3YcT 311 Ti

f 3)c1I21 c j fT?DT &fi rr i1?i it

YIc'i'-tt 4 .I*cc1 j11I64 * flT2T —47 91 47300414047791 I9IcP30.04.

2014 cP ii '1 1b .1 TRII i '.-cj,ci 14T -i I TRIT , ?r flsuT

El1 LIIcic4) 13 q 74T ti 3T1: qhun t[ t:-47

cpUJ I5 f[T 3TfT45Tt TT 3ii''lR1ci wrRcT i FIc1 I

cul T2f 1Ik -erm t f ft gRciPj rrr *

—47 -qt qT R zR fthuj 3Ifr 'i1?i

17 -i i TMT I qfftfl it i i -t I 4 i *cj,ci .i cii 61 * rr i

—47 9l-6k 47t300414047791 1.9icP30.04.2014 I5 'i11c 1b.1t

rzrr ,i*c,ci 1'b'.1I TRIT *1 3TT: zimqiq ici1ti vzrTL1Ie1I TT #ffd t

1?ii1ci ftcci * 3B1cP iIIci t tZ 31I'LII 'iI1c1 Wtff F?t 1T

I WcTff L R T 1-T1r i1r FT &l I '<'1 1 ci TFRTT

cL4c17) 19M 4 '3cc1 1I1 IlTT 3EJ I'-lIc TT

NT tzF 1.i1 61'IFH '1I'tICP ciIFI1c1 ZT5 '1c*c1I, f11s

2013 tcM 3TtI *E 4Ie'1 35 t1-2 f 49 iPci Piu1.i

flWNO

Cera Tech India Vs Asstt. Commercial Taxes Officer, Bhiwadi, 2013

Tax-Up Date (35) Part-2, Page 49, considered this issue and held as

under :- The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of D.P. Metals (supra) has

categorically held that on show cause notice with regard to alleged

contravention/deficiency found in respect of goods in transit, if the

deficiency/contravention is removed, with the filing of the equisite

4

-4-31)ei 'H'&-1l 1584/2015/cP.l

document by the assessee imposition of penalty ought to be eschewed. In

the instant case if is not in dispute that form VAT 47 was furnished to AdO,

who checked the vehicle with the reply to show cause notice on the very

same day. That being the position, there is no escape from the inevitable

conclusion that the petitioner assessee could not have been found in

contravention of Section 76(2)(b) of the RVAT Act. Other documents such

as invoice and transport receipt were also by themselves indicative of the bonafides of the transit of goods. Following the judgment in case of D.P.

Metals (supra), I am of the considered view that at the first instance on the

very same day the petitioner assessee having furnished Form VAT-47 to

AdO, and the petitioner could not have been found to be in contravention of Section 76(2)(b) of the RVAT Act or visited with penalty under Section

76(6) of the RVAT Act." \yu1cic1 t-4 i- r Ni* tg

1biii frlI11 TfUZFZF cift11cP Zf5 3Tf 1k-ic1II 2013 .cN1

c4 I c1 36 11T_2 4Uf 37 cp g {çj

"The fact remains that in the present case the assessee even

furnished the declaration form in VAT-47 on the very next date of giving of

notice on 5.3.2009 i.e. on 6.3.2009. There is no finding in the impugned order passed by the assessing authority on 6.3.2009 itself that such

declaration form or bills or bilties already found with the transit on 5.3.2009 are false, forged or unreliable in any manner. In these

circumstances, the imposed penalty cannot be found to be justified." On the other hand, the different benches of this Court,

consistently held that in such circumstances where declaration forms are

furnished immediately upon giving of notice to the assessee, unless the

same are found to be false and forged, the penalty can not be sustained. In

the case of ACTO vs M/s Tata Iron and Steel company Ltd. (supra), the

coordinate bench of this Court held as under." "It is very clear that though the provisions of Section 78(5) of the Act,

have been held to be just, proper and valid but it is not automatic, the

principles of natural justice, demand an opportunity to be given to rebut

and if the documents are produced then the benefit of producing the

documents ought to have been given to the assessee and no penalty should

have been imposed. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment of theHon'ble Apex

Court is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present

case." cfrUI * zYktc1 IFici T2T 4 iiii4).i 31 --1I1Ic TT \3L4i1ctc1

1iicp 30.06.2015 31k-c1 WRt3Tt)Q1I2 it c,c1 3T'1k

zm %jjIcj) ti

II I