Back
2017 Supreme(Raj) 367
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
JAINENDRA KUMAR RANKA, J.
Reckitt Binckiser (India) Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Anti Evasion, Commercial Taxes Department Ward-III, Jaipur – Respondent
S.B. SALES TAX REVISION/REFERENCE No. 7-9, 11-16, 111, 117-119, 121-125 OF 2012, 64 OF 2014
Decided on : 07-04-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Jawahar Lal Adv., Mr. Sarvesh Jain Adv., Mr. Rishabh Khandelwal Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. R. B. Mathur Adv. with Ms. Meenal Ghiya Adv.
Important Point - It is good fiscal policy not to put people in doubt and quandary about their liability to duty.
Headnote:Constitution of India – Article 226 – Petitions herein involve various substantial questions of law relating to the levies of taxes on the assesses - A survey came to be conducted at the business premises of the assessee by the Anti Evasion Wing of the revenue wherein it was noticed that the assessee is manufacturing/producing various household products - Assessing Officer charged a differential rate as well as levied interest and also levied penalty - The claim of the assessee insofar as “Dettol” is concerned is also well justified and reasoned and the finding given by the Tax Board is just and proper and is upheld -There is no occasion of levy of penalty - All the entries were entered in the Stock Register and there is no unrecorded sale noticed or found or adversely commented - The petitions filed by the assessee are allowed and the questions in the petitions of assessee are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue - The question raised in the petitions filed by the revenue are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue and are dismissed with no order as to costs.
Result – Petitions filed by the assessee were allowed and the petitions foled by the revenue were dismissed.
1. The facts of the leading case bearing SB STR No.11/2012 are taken into consideration and since it is claimed by the counsel that the issues being identical and raising common controversy for the sake of convenience, therefore are being decided after hearing counsel for the parties by this common order, the judgment would be applicable to all others. It relates to assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 respectively.
2. The petitions were admitted on the following substantial questions of law which reads as under:-
Petitions filed by Assessee; SB STR Nos. 7/2012, 8/2012, 9/2012, 11/2012, 12/2012, 13/2012, 14/2012, 15/2012, 16/2012 & 64/2014 :-
“1. Whether the Tax Board erred in law in failing to appreciate the judgment of the Tax Board’s judgment in the case of “Jyoti Laboratories (reported as (2009) 23 Tax Update 76) which relied on Hon’ble Karnataka High Court judgment in the case of Ashok Agencies Vs. State of Karnataka (reported as (2008) 16 STT 435 wherein it was held a specific entry (such as Entry 21 and 29 of the Schedule IV of RVAT Act) which does not qualify the said entries and limit their application only to be used in agriculture and horticultural purposes, a qualification cannot be imported by the respondents?
2. Whether the Tax Board erred in law in treating Entry 21 of Schedule IV of RVAT Act, wherein goods to qualify under the said entry were limited in terms of use or required to be used for agricultural/horticulture use. The Tax Board classified “Harpic” and “Lizol” under Schedule IV of RVAT Act on this erroneous premise?
3. Whether the Tax Board has committed an error apparent on the face of record in classifying “Harpic” in list Schedule V, whereas the same should have been classified under entry No.21, 29 & 43 of Schedule IV of the RVAT Act and Rules framed thereunder?
4. Whether the Tax Board has committed an error in not appreciating that the scope of Entry 21 as well as Entry 29 to Schedule IV of the RVAT Act was not limited to the goods used for agricultural/horticultural purposes?
5. Whether the Tax Board has committed an error of law in not appreciating that “Harpic” being disinfectant, could not be classified under Schedule V of the RVAT Act?
Petitions filed by Revenue; SB STR Nos. 111/2012, 117/2012, 118/2012, 121/2012, 122/2012, 123/2012, 124/2012 & 125/2012:-
“1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Rajasthan Tax Board was justified in deleting the penalty under section 61 of the Act despite the fact that the tax at the lesser rate was deposited contrary to the applicable rate of tax on the goods sold by the assessee?”
“2.WHETHER in the facts and circumstances of the case of Rajasthan Tax Board was justified in law in holding that the product of respondent ‘Dettol’ falls within the ambit of drug and medicine despite of the fact that the assessing authority as well as appellate authority have categorically held same to be falling in residuary entry liable to be taxed at higher rate?
3. WHETHER in the facts and circumstances of the case the Rajasthan Tax Board was justified in deleting the penalty u/Sec.61 of the Act solely on the ground that the entries were recorded in the books of accounts though the same were incorrect and deliberately the goods were shown to be taxable on a lesser rate than applicable rate of tax?
3. The brief facts noticed are that a survey came to be conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 03.05.2007 by the Anti Evasion Wing of the revenue wherein, it was noticed that the assessee is manufacturing/producing Anti-mosquitoes devices and “repellents”, “Dettol Soap”, “Brasso”, “Harpic Toilet Cleaner”, “Lizol Floor Cleaner”, “Manson Polish”, “Robin Blue”, “Ret Kill”, “Teenapole”, Drugs & Medicines etc. and during the course of survey and further investigation material was collected on the basis whereof the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee is selling Electrically Operated Anti-mosquito devices & repellents, Electrica
