[2025:RJ-JP:17731] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Sales Tax Revision / Reference No. 3/2025 M/s Bhageria Brothers, 84, Geejgarh Vihar Colony, Hawa Sadak, 22 Godam, Jaipur ( Rajasthan) Through Its Proprietor Shri Nitin Bhageria, Son Of Shri Damodar Prasad Bhageria, Aged 48 Years, Resident Of Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus The The Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Ward 1, Anti- Evasion, Abu Road (Rajasthan). ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Alkesh Sharma Mr. Yashashvi Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 22/01/2025 1. Instant STR is preferred by petitioner aggrieved from dismissal of appeal no. 566/2018/ Jaipur on 18.09.2024 by Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer whereby the Tax Board has affirmed the order of appellate authority passed on 11.04.2018. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner while placing reliance upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Rajasthan and Anr. Vs. D.P. Metals (Civil Appeal No. 5085/2000) with other appeals (judgment dated 04.10.2001) submitted that at the time of interception or search, if any document is not available with assessee then as a matter of principle of natural justice, an opportunity be granted to applicant so that he may produce the same to the satisfaction of Tax [2025:RJ-JP:17731] (2 of 4) [STR-3/2025] Evasion Authority. Learned counsel further relied upon judgment in case of M/s. Videocon Industries Ltd. Vs. The Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer (S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 212/2012, order dated 28.08.2014) and submitted that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while placing reliance upon judgment in case of D.P. Metals (supra), has held that if a document is supplied to fill up the lacuna or shortcoming found at the time of search, the Tax Authority is not empowered to impose penalty. Learned counsel has further referred the judgment in case of M/s. Bajaj Rubber Company Vs. Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Bhiwadi S.B. STR no. 311/2008, order dated 09.04.2013) and submitted that if a driver is not carrying the declaration form which was mandatory to carry along with other documents in vehicle even then, an opportunity is required in terms of principles of natural justice, as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of D.P. Metals (supra). 3. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellate court and also the Rajasthan Tax Board have committed serious error while dismissing the appeal preferred by present appellant. He further submitted the required declaration was issued on very same day and produced before the Tax Evasion Authority, therefore, the petitioners have not committed any violation of law. He further submits that the grounds give rise to substantial question of law and requires consideration by this Hon’ble Court. 4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the material placed on record. Also considered the judgments as referred by learned counsel for petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:17731] (3 of 4) [STR-3/2025] 5. In case of State of Rajsthan and Anr. Vs. D.P. Metals (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the issue wherein the truck M/s. D.P. Metals was seized by ACTO, Jaipur on 22.01.1997 and same was found not to be carrying declaration form ST-18-A. A showcause notice was issued to M/s. D.P. Metals and after hearing, a penalty of ₹63,200/- was levied under Section 78(5) of Rajasthan Salex Tax Act, 1994. The virus of Section 78(5) of Rajasthan Sales Tax Act was challenged by filing writ petition and same was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court declaring Section 78(5) as ultra vires. 6. On an appeal preferred by State of Rajasthan, Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering several decisions allowed the appeal of state and held that provision of Section 78(5) of Rajasthan Salex Tax Act are valid and impugned decision of High Court in this regard is not correct. While considering the submission of Tax Assessee, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that if by mistake some of the documents are not readily available at the time of the checking, principle of natural justice may require some opportunity being given to produce the same. 7. Having considered the aforementioned observation with regard to the fact when the truck was intercepted in January, 1997 not carrying the declaration form ST-18-A whereas in the instant case the truck no HR47- A6192 was intercepted at 8:20 am on 19.03.2017 and requisite declaration VAT 47/47-A was not found at the spot. Admittedly, this declaration form VAT-47/47-A was generated at 11:53:03 am on 19.03.2017. It means after three hours of interception this form was generated and produced to claim that it has been issued on very same day of interception. [2025:RJ-JP:17731] (4 of 4) [STR-3/2025] After invention of computer, now it has become little easier to track tax evaders. Herein this case, if the questioned truck was not intercepted and seized at 8:20 am then, he would have cross the checking point for tax and would have easily evaded the tax. 8. It is clear case wherein after interception the required declaration was issued, therefore, the judgment in case of M/s. D.P. Metals (supra) is not helpful for present petitioner. The computer is meant for accountability and also for transparency. The required declaration form was issued only after interception but as per law same is required to be procured prior to initiation of consignment. Even during transit such declaration form cannot be procured, and submitted after interception. In a human operated system one can defraud the system but not a machine. Herein, this time of generation is sufficient to show that the forum/declaration was generated only after interception. 9. In view of aforesaid, the judgment in case of D.P. Metals (supra) is not applicable and so the case of M/s. Videocon Industries Ltd. (supra) and M/s. Bajaj Rubber Company Vs. Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer (supra). Thus, grounds does not give rise to a substantial question of law. 10. The Tax Board and the appellate authority have not committed any error while dismissing the appeal of assessee. Thus, no case is made out for interference by this Court. 11. Hence, the instant Sales Tax Revision is hereby dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /65