Assistant Commissioner, ... vs Pawan Bansal S/O Shri Ramnarayan ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 559 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

         D.B. Sales Tax Revision / Reference No. 85/2021

Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle B,
Bharatpur.
                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
Pawan Bansal S/o Shri Ramnarayan Bansal, R/o 5023, Balvir
Nagar, Delhi.
                                                                ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Punit Singhvi through VC For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Judgment

21/01/2022

This revision petition is filed by the State Government to

challenge an order dated 04.02.2021 passed by the Rajasthan Tax

Board. The Rajasthan Tax Board had come to the conclusion that

the proceedings against the respondent were barred by limitation

as provided under Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (in short

'VAT Act'). This conclusion was based on the premise that the

respondent was a casual trader as defined under Section 2(8) of

the VAT Act and in whose case the period of limitation prescribed

under the Act of completing the assessment had expired. Learned

counsel for the State Government however submitted that the

respondent could not have been stated to be a casual trader. The

term "casual trader" has been defined in Section 2(8) as to mean

a person who, whether as principal, agent or in any other capacity,

has occasional transactions of a business nature involving buying,

(2 of 2) [STR-85/2021]

selling, supplying or distributing of such goods as may be notified

by the State Government. The present case involves a single

transaction executed by the respondent. There is nothing on

record to suggest that there were multiple transactions during the

period under consideration. In fact the revision memo suggests

that even the State admits that this is a case of single transaction.

No question of law arises.

This revision petition is dismissed.

                                   (SAMEER JAIN),J                                                    (AKIL KURESHI),CJ

                                   BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI/31









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)