JUDGMENT 1. - This order will dispose of two Sales Tax Revisions bearing No. 145/2009 and 146/2009. Both the revisions have been filed by the Revenue through the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion, Bhilwara against the impugned order of the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer dated 07.08.2008. By the impugned order, the learned Tax Board decided two appeals preferred against the order dated 09.01.2007 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Bhilwara. Out of the said two appeals, the first appeal bearing No. 258/2007/Bhilwara, preferred by the assessee was allowed and the penalty of Rs. 88200/- was set aside and the second appeal bearing No. 968/2007/Bhilwara preferred by the Revenue was dismissed and the order of the Deputy Commissioner setting aside the penalty of Rs. 158760/- was maintained. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present revisions are that on 08.06.2006, a goods vehicle bearing No. RJ 27/G-2311 was intercepted and checked at Azad Nagar, Bhilwara and on inspection it was found that the goods were not accompanied with appropriate documents like Form ST-18A, bills, bilties and other documents, therefore, observing the entire procedure, penalty of Rs. 2,78,712/- was imposed by the Assessing Authority under Section 76(6) of the VAT Act vide order dated 12.06.2006, details of which are as follows : S.No Name of the goods Value of the goods Rate of penalty Amount of Penalty 1. 499 C/R Shampoo Rs. 377244/- 30% Rs. 1131173/- 2. 201 C/R Shampoo Rs. 151956 30% Rs. 45587/- 3. 140 C/R Talc Rs. 105840/- 30% Rs. 31752/- 4. 70 C/R Pen Rs. 2,94,000/- 30% Rs. 88200/- Total Value Rs. 9,29,040/- Total penalty Rs. 278712/- 3. Against the order imposing the penalty, the assessee filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Bhilwara and the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 09.01.2007 set aside the penalty of Rs. 158760/- while retaining the penalty of Rs. 88200/-. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), both the assessee and the Revenue filed appeals before the learned Tax Board and the learned Tax Board vide the impugned order dated 07.08.2008 allowed the appeal of the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. The Revenue by way of filing these two revisions is making challenge to the order of the learned Tax Board allowing appeal of the assessee and dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. 4. The Revenue by way of filing these two revisions is making challenge to the order of the learned Tax Board allowing appeal of the assessee and dismissing the appeal of the Revenue. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner-Revenue contended that the order of the learned Tax Board setting aside the penalty of Rs. 88200/- is not legal one and the learned Tax Board earred in allowing the appeal filed by the assessee. He further contended that the learned Tax Board also erred in dismissing the appeal of Revenue and affirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) by which he set aside the penalty of Rs. 158760/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the relevant documents were not accompanied with the goods being carried, therefore, the imposition of the penalty is not illegal. He contended that the learned Tax Board has not exercised its powers in proper manner and the order passed by the learned Tax Board is illegal and with material irregularities, therefore, the same may be set aside. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments relied upon the following judgments : (1) Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Bajaj Electricals Limited [( 2009 1 SCC 308 ] (2) M/s. Guljag Industries v. Commercial Taxes Officer [2007 18 Tax Update 321] 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that both these cases deal with the matters in which Form ST 18ANAT-47 are required and further if they are found blank, in those cases, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that there are every chance of misuse of that blank form, therefore, the imposition of penalty in such cases was held to be legal one. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the non-petitioner assessee contended that the Assessing Authority in its order dated 12.06.2006 specifically held that the import of the ball pens from outside the State by the assessee does not require Form ST-18ANAT-47 because ball pens are not the specified goods for which Form ST-18ANAT-47 is required and other documents, i.e. the bill and bilty were already produced before the Assessing Authority, therefore, the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) affirming imposition of penalty of Rs. 88200/- was per se illegal and therefore, the order of the Tax Board setting aside the said penalty is legal one and it cannot be said that the Tax Board erred in setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) by which he had maintained the penalty of Rs. 88200/-He further contended that so far as the order of the learned Tax Board regarding penalty of Rs. 158760/- is concerned, there are concurrent findings of two appellate authorities regarding the same that such penalty could not be imposed, therefore, the same does not require interference by this court at this stage. 8. The learned counsel for the non-petitioner assessee in support of his arguments relied upon the following judgments (1) Assistant Commissioner, Anti Evasion, Commercial Taxes, Bharatpur v. Ametk India Limited [ (2007) 6 VST 242 (SC) (2) Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Flying Squad 1, Jaipu v. Prakash Punj [(2010) 40 VST 396 (Raj.)] (3) Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Ward- II, AE, Bharatpu v. M/s. Smilex Pharmaceuticals [2010 (28) Tax Update 261] (4) Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Jhalawar v. M/s. Rajasthan Tubes Manufacturing Limited & Anr. [2010 (28) Tax Update 321 ] 9. The learned counsel for the non-petitioner assessee contended that the Hon'ble Apex Court and this court in the cases referred above held that where documents are produced by the assessee in pursuance to the notice given by the Assessing Authority, no penalty can be imposed by the Assessing Authority. 10. I have considered the rival contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments cited by them. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the observation of the Assessing Authority that the bail pens are not the specified goods for which Form ST-18A/VAT-47 is required. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) did not consider the aforesaid aspect which was discussed by the Assessing Authority in its impugned order. Accordingly, when the goods which are imported from outside the State do not require Form ST-18ANAT-47, then no penalty could be imposed in respect of the goods in question, i.e. the ball pens, because the bill and bilty were already produced before the Assessing Authority by calling it by fax. So far as imposition of penalty of Rs. Accordingly, when the goods which are imported from outside the State do not require Form ST-18ANAT-47, then no penalty could be imposed in respect of the goods in question, i.e. the ball pens, because the bill and bilty were already produced before the Assessing Authority by calling it by fax. So far as imposition of penalty of Rs. 158760/- is concerned, which was set aside by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and which order was maintained by the learned Tax Board, there are concurrent findings of facts of two appellate authorities and the same do not require any interference by this court. 12. In view of the discussion made above, it cannot be said that the learned Tax Board has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction with material irregularity or illegality. Both the revisions filed by the Revenue are devoid of any merit and the same deserve to be dismissed. The same are accordingly dismissed.Revision Dismissed. *******