Mr. Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J.

1. Instant Sales Tax Revision Petition at the instance of assessee is directed against the order dated 22/06/2012 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer dismissing the appeal of the assessee.

2. Brief facts noticed for disposal of this petition are that sun flower oil was loaded and was in transit in Vehicle No.PB06G/6766 and was coming from Kapurthala (Punjab) to Jaipur. The vehicle was intercepted on 05/08/2008 at Bhadra. The driver Baljeet Singh produced Invoice No.305 dated 01/08/2008 where the consignor of the goods was mentioned as M/s. A.G. Fats Limited, Kapurthala and the consignee was mentioned as M/s. Agro Tech Foods Ltd., Jaipur (the assessee herein). The total weight of the goods was 19,690 Kg. with value of Rs. 12,10,955/- and a GR No.26324 dated 01/08/2008 of M/s. Ahmedgarh Tanker Transport, Ludhiyana was also produced. The driver Baljeet Singh also produced Form VAT-47 bearing No.2417595 in which in all there were three parts namely; A, B & C and almost in all the parts, some column were found blank and instantaneously it was also noticed that against the date, month and value, the form was not punched and the officer was of the view that neither the Form VAT-47 was filled in nor being punched and the form could be used again and accordingly issued a show cause notice u/Sec. 76(2)(b) of the Rajasthan VAT Act, 2003 read with Rule 53.

3. On behalf of the assessee, an explanation was filed along with affidavit and it was pleaded that the matter be concluded on the same date itself, interalia, contending that the invoice, builty and even the Form VAT-47 was found with the vehicle and only on account of some inadvertence, some of the columns remained to be filled in and merely because some of the columns were left unfilled, it does not make any difference. It was also contended that the bill contained name of the transport company and GR contained name of consignor with address and that the form can be punched later on as well. It was further contended that there was no intention of reusing the form again. However, the Anti Evasion Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee and accordingly imposed penalty u/Sec. 76(6) taking into consideration the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Guljag Industries v. Commercial Taxes Officer : (2007) 7 SCC 269.

4. The matter was carried in appeal by the assessee before Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) (for short, ‘DC(A)’) and before the DC(A) the same facts were reiterated. The DC(A) was also not satisfied with the explanation offered and accordingly upheld the penalty.

5. The matter was assailed before the Rajasthan Tax Board in further appeal and it was contended that the claim of the Assessing Officer (for short, ‘AO’) was not justified and there is no occasion of imposition of penalty u/Sec. 76(2). It was further contended that when all documents were found in order, the goods cannot be said to be transported with the intention of evasion of tax. However, the Tax Board also upheld the penalty order. Thus, in unison, all the three authorities came to a finding that there was contravention of provisions of Section 76(2) of the VAT Act as well as Rule 53 of the VAT Rules.

6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the AO has been unable to prove as to merely because some of the columns were left unfilled, whether penalty could be imposed. He further contended that only some columns remained to be filled in which even otherwise were not material particulars as laid down by the Apex Court in its judgment rendered in the case of Guljag Industries v. Commercial Taxes Officer (supra). He further contended that this Court in some of the cases, on a few columns remaining unfilled, has come to a conclusion that, if the material particulars remained to be filled in, then the penalty may be justified but if some of the columns, which are not material particulars, remained unfilled, then no occasion arises for imposition of penalty