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/