[2025:RJ-JD:35678]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 222/2013 Commercial Taxes Officer, Ward B, Udaipur ----Petitioner Versus M/s Soni Marketing, 1D-10, Sector No.13, Udaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Prasad Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinay Kothari, through VC Mr. Ayush Goyal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

07/08/2025

1. The instant civil revision petition under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 has been preferred on behalf of the Commercial Taxes Department being aggrieved of the judgment and order dated 06.06.2013 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer in Appeal No.2231/2011/Udaipur, whereby the appeal preferred by the Revenue was dismissed and the order dated 27.06.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes Department, Udaipur in Appeal No.137/VAT/10-

11 was affirmed.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the Assessing Authority while assessing the tax of the respondent firm for the Assessment Year 2007-08 found that the assessee firm had purchased branded potato chips, namely, Uncle Chips, Lays etc., from the M/s Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. and sold the same by collecting tax at the rate of 4%, whereas the branded chips are taxable at the rate of 12.5%, therefore, differential tax of Rs.5,41,120/-, penalty under Section 61 of the RVAT Act amounting to Rs.10,82,240/- (double of the alleged evaded tax amount) and interest of Rs.1,62,336/- was imposed vide order dated 31.03.2010 and since the assessee had not submitted form VAT-10 and VAT-10A at the relevant time, therefore, penalty amounting to Rs.36,910/- was also imposed vide the same order.

3. Being aggrieved of the order passed by the Assessing Authority, the assessee preferred an appeal under Section 82 of the RAVT Act before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Udaipur, which was partly allowed vide order dated 27.06.2011. The appellate authority held that the potato chips sold by the assessee under the names Uncle Chips, Lays etc. are branded chips and they do not come under the entry No.107 of Schedule IV under Section 4 of the RVAT Act and thus, the imposition of differential tax at the rate of 8.5% (12.5% - 4%) was justified, however, since the entire sale was recorded in the account books of the assessee, therefore, there appeared not intention on part of the assessee to evade tax, therefore, the imposition of penalty was set aside.

4. Being aggrieved of the order passed by the appellate authority, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the learned Tax Board, Ajmer, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 06.06.2013 and it was held that the appellate authority has committed no legal error in setting aside the penalty under Section 61 of the RAVT Act and further the imposition of penalty under Section 58 of the RVAT Act was also set aside holding that the same was imposed without issuing any summon.

5. Being aggrieved of the orders passed by the appellate authority and the Tax Board, the Revenue has preferred the instant revision petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tax Board has committed grave error in upholding the decision of the appellate authority without considering the fact and legal aspects of the matter. He submits that the law is very much clear that the tax rate applicable on the branded potato chips is 12.5% and assessee deliberately collected tax at the rate of 4% in order to evade tax, therefore, the imposition of penalty was perfectly justified. He further submits that since the assessee failed to submit the requisite forms VAT-10 and VAT-10A within the stipulated period, therefore, he was certainly liable to pay penalty under Section 58 of the RVAT Act. He, therefore, prays for acceptance of the revision petition.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent assessee submits that it is an admitted position that the assessee had recorded the entire sale in question in his books