JUDGMENT 1. - These two revisions under Section 86(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act') are directed against the Judgment dated 24.9.1998 passed by Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer whereby it has affirmed the judgment dated 27.4.1991 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 16(1)(e) of the Act for two different assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91. 2. The only question raised in these two revisions is whether the penalty imposed under Section 16(1)(e) of the Act, in respect of the assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91 has been validly set aside by the appellate authorities. 3. The assessee is a Dealer of 'Jaljira'. He disclosed the entire turnover in his returns and deposited the tax at the rate of 6% considering the commodity to be a medicinal preparation under the Ayurvedic system of thereby. The Assessing Officer felt that this is not a commodity, which is in common parlance known as medicine and is primarily taken as pre-meals appetiser or after meals digestive and primarily for taste and thus, he has levied tax on this commodity of 'Jaljira' @ 10%. Since additional tax of 4% was imposed, he was of the view that the assessee has not disclosed correct particulars of his turn over in respect of 'Jaljira' in the right category and, therefore, the particulars of the turn over have been concealed. On this conclusion, he levied penally under Section 16(1)(e) of the Act for the assessment years 1989-90 and 1990-91. 4. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) vide his order dated 27.4.1991, while upholding the lelvy of tax @ 10% did not find it a case for levying penalty under Section 16(1)(e) of the Act. inter alia, on the ground that since the entire turn over has been disclosed and dispute has been raised by the assessee only in respect of the rate of tax applicable to such turn over of 'Jaljira' by relying on a particular entry in the Schedule of Rates of Tax, and, therefore, there has been no concealment of the particulars of the turn over by the assessee. 5. Against the Order dated 27.4.1991 passed in both the appeals by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), the assessing Officer filed two appeals before the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer. 5. Against the Order dated 27.4.1991 passed in both the appeals by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), the assessing Officer filed two appeals before the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer. The assessee also filed an appeal against the levy of tax @ 10% and consequential interest on the additional sum of tax. 6. During the pendency of the appeals before the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, the assessee's own revision pertaining to earlier assessment year raising the same question came up before this Hon'ble Court and this Hon'ble Court by its Judgment reported in 1994(15) RTJS-69 rejected the plea of the assessee as to the rate of tax applicable to the commodity and upheld the levy of tax @ 10% and interest thereon under the Act. Therefore, relying on the above decision of this Court, the appeal of the assessee with regard to levy of additional tax and interest thereon under the Act was dismissed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer vide its Judgment dated 24.9.1998. So also, the appeal of the Revenue in respect of setting aside of the penalty under Section 16(1)(e) of the Act by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) was also dismissed. Hence, these two revisions by the revenue. 7. Section 16(1)(e) of the Act provides that if any person has concealed any particulars from any return furnished by him or has deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars therein, he is liable to penalty prescribed therein. The facts noticed above speak for themselves that the assessee has not concealed any particulars from, his return about his taxable turnover. Raising a dispute or taking a stand about the rate at which particular sale transactions are required to be taxed with reference to a particular entry in the Schedule or raising a claim with regard to concessional rate or exemption under various Notifications after disclosing particulars of the turn over does not call for invoking the provisions of Section 16(1)(e) of the Act. The necessary ingredients for invoking the provisions of Section 16(e) of the Act are: (i) that particulars must be concealed in the returns; and (ii) that deliberately inaccurate particulars are disclosed in the return by the assessee with a view to mislead the Assessing Officer. The particulars necessarily in the context referes to the particulars of the turn over which can be subjected to tax. The particulars necessarily in the context referes to the particulars of the turn over which can be subjected to tax. Once the particulars of turn over are disclosed fully it remain matter of correctly assessing the same to tax by the assessing officer by applying the relevant provision of law. It may be a matter of dispute between the parties that on those particulars, in what manner and under which entry or under which Notification, the particular turn over is to be subjected to tax. Result of such dispute by itself cannot attract the provisions of Section 16(1)(e) of the Act. As stated above, in the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that particulars of the turn over relating to both the assessment years in question have been disclosed and the only dispute was in relation to the rate of tax with reference to particular entry under the Schedule of Rates of Tax and that does not give rise to attracting the penalty under the provisions of Section 16(1)(e) of the Act. 8. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the Rajasthan Tax Board was perfectly justified in upholding the decision of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). The Judgments passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) as also the Rajasthan Tax Board do not call for interference. 9. In the result, these revisions fail and are hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.Revision dismissed. *******