Pursottam Lal

S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.121/2008 A.C.T.O. (W-II) Banswara Vs. M/s Purshottam Lal Date of Order :: 21st May 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.Rishabh Sancheti for Mr.V.K.Mathur, for the petitioner This revision petition is directed against the Judgment dated 06.09.2007 whereby the learned Tax Board has set aside levy of tax upon the non-petitioner under the Rajasthan Tax on Entry of Motor Vehicles into Local Areas Act, 1988 (‘ the Act of 1988’) with the findings that the vehicle in question was purchased from the State of Gujarat for personal use after making payment of tax @ 13.2%; that the non-petitioner of course did not obtain Form ET-1 but had applied for the same in response to the notice and the Authority did not issue such Form ET-1 despite application; and obtaining Form ET-1 remains merely a technical requirement. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the position that the vehicle in question was purchased for personal use after making payment of tax @ 13.2% in the State of Gujarat but submits that the assessee was liable for penalty for having not obtained Form ET-1. Learned counsel, however, could not justify levy of tax @ 12% in this case as ordered by the Assessing Authority in the impugned order dated 28.06.2004. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the indisputable finding that the assessee had purchased the vehicle for personal use after making payment of tax @ 13.2% in the State of Gujarat, levy of tax @ 12% under the Act of 1988 was obviously 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 but the same was not issued, the learned Tax Board cannot be said to have committed any error or illegality in setting aside levy of tax in this case. Under the order impugned as passed by the Assessing Authority, interest and penalty were left to be ordered separately. In the totality of circumstances, this court finds no justification to consider the question of penalty in this revision petition. This revision petition does not involve any question of law worth consideration and is, therefore, rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. s.son