Classic Automobiles

S.B. CIVIL (ST) REVISION PETITION NO.22/2008. A.C.T.O. Circle-2 B, Udaipur Vs. M/s. Classic Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur Date of Order ::

21st May 2008.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. V.K. Mathur ] Mr. Rishabh Sancheti ], for the petitioner. ..... BY THE COURT: Though in this case, the learned Tax Board in its impugned order dated 28.05.2007 has rejected as infructuous the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 05.07.2005 as passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Udaipur because after remand by the said Appellate Authority, the Assessing Authority had passed assessment order on 25.10.2005; however, after noticing the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the detailed order dated 05.07.2005 as passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), this Court is satisfied that no case for interference is made out. The Assessing Authority proceeded to impose the tax, surcharge, penalty and interest against the non-petitioner under Sections 3, 4, 6 and 7 of the Rajasthan Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1988 (‘ the Act of 1988’) on the ground that the non-petitioner purchased a vehicle from outside the State but did not make payment of the tax under the Act of 1988 nor filed declaration in Form ET-1. The learned Appellate Authority has found in its order dated 05.07.2007 that the vehicle in question was purchased for personal use from New Delhi after making payment of tax at the rate of 12%. It was also noticed that though belatedly, the non-petitioner did apply for Form ET-1 and deposited requisite fee of Rs. 10/-. The Appellate Authority has found that no case was made out for levy of penalty and 12% tax as already paid was required to be adjusted and, thus, remanded the matter for levy only of difference of tax and surcharge and interest. It has not been disputed even in the statement of the case submitted in this matter that the vehicle in question was purchased for personal use after making payment of tax @ 12% in New Delhi. In this scenario, levy of tax @ 12% under the Act of 1988 was unjustified in view of its Section 4(2) which provides for reduction of tax leviable under the Act to the extent of the amount of tax paid, under the law relating to General Sales Tax as may be in force in other State or under the Central Sales Tax Act, by an importer who, not being a dealer registered under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, had purchased the vehicle for his own use. Looking to the scheme of the Act of 1988 and the Rules made thereunder; and further, looking to the finding that the non-petitioner did apply for Form ET-1, the order as passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) directing adjustment of the tax already paid cannot be said to be unjustified. It may be pointed out that in the case of Asstt Commissioner (AE), Udaipur Vs. M/s Raghuveer Construction Company, Udaipur: S.B. Civil Revision Petition No.66/2008, decided on 22.04.2008, this Court has also taken the view that levy of surcharge is not envisaged by any of the provisions of the Act of 1988. Therefore, even the directions for imposition of surcharge were not sustainable.

In the aforesaid view of the matter, even when the Tax Board has dismissed the appeal as infructuous, on merits this Court finds no case for interference. The revision petition is, therefore, rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/