JUDGMENT : Mr. Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J. 1. Instant petition at the instance of Revenue is directed against the order dated 24.03.2009 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer allowing the appeal of the assessee. 2. The brief facts noticed are that a survey was conducted on 27.04.2007 at the business premises of the respondent-assessee and it was noticed that the assessee is a manufacturer of ‘Bidi’ (Tobacco Product) and is not depositing any tax. From 01.04.2007 to 3.4.2007 it was @ 4% whereas vide Notification dated 04.04.2007 @ 12.50% was directed to be charged and paid. 3. It was noticed by the authorised Officer of survey team that the sale was being conducted only through challans and no separate bill or VAT invoice was issued and accordingly noticing the above and other defects, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 25.05.2007 not only charged VAT @ 4% from 01.04.2007 to 03.04.2007, from 04.04.2007 onwards @ 12.50% but also imposed penalty u/Sec.61 of the VAT Act. 4. On matter having been assailed before the Dy. Commissioner (A) resulted into dismissal of the appeal and the Appellate Authority not only upheld the tax but also the penalty as well. On a further appeal before the Rajasthan Tax Board resulted into upholding the finding about levy of tax but in so far as penalty is concerned, it deleted the same. 5. Learned counsel for the revenue has assailed the deletion of the penalty in the instant petition. It is contended by the ld. Counsel for the Revenue that it was a clear cut case of not paying tax when it was mandated from 01.04.2007 to 3.4.2007 and thereafter from 04.04.2007 onwards to deposit the tax @ 4% and 12.50% respectively and this fact came to light only at the time of survey proceeding else the assessee would have gone scot-free in neither paying tax nor interest. He further contends that the assessee did not issue VAT invoice and was selling the same only through challan and it is contrary to the provisions of the VAT Act and, thus, the penalty was also rightly levied by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Dy. Commissioner (A) but wrongly deleted by the Tax Board and contends that questions of law arise out of the order of the Tax Board. 6. Commissioner (A) but wrongly deleted by the Tax Board and contends that questions of law arise out of the order of the Tax Board. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner and have perused the impugned order as well as other orders. 7. It is an admitted fact that though goods were being sold through challan but it was mentioned “VAT Payable as per Schedule, if applicable as on date”. Therefore, the assessee was not hiding anything from the Revenue. It is also noticed that on perusal of the impugned order that as per notification dated 17.02.2004, the assessee was entitled to deposit the tax on or before 14 days of the close of the month and such notification was in force and therefore the assessee deposited the entire tax on or before 14 days of the close of the month. 8. It is also a finding of fact recorded by the Tax Board that the Empowered Committee of the Finance Ministers of various States had opined to exempt ‘Bidi’ (Tobacco Product) from tax, therefore, in the challan, it was mentioned as “Vat Payable as per Schedule if applicable as on date” and therefore, the intention of the assessee was clear. There was some ambiguity on the basis of opinion of Empowered Committee. The Tax Board has also come to a finding of fact that there was declaration in the challan as noticed above and it does not prove that there was intention of evasion of tax rather the Assessing Officer proceeded in haste in proceeding ahead and imposing not only the tax but also penalty as after the close of the month of April still 14 days time was available with the assessee to deposit the said amount and the assessee could have deposited the same on or before 14.05.2007 whereas survey came to be conducted on 27.04.2007 prior to the given period and admittedly, the assessee has deposited the said amount within 14 days of the close of the month. 9. The Notification bearing No. F.4(69)Tax Division/95/Part 133 dated 17.02.2004 reads as under:- Column No. 1 Column No.2 (a) Dealers with annual tax liability of rupees 40 crore and above for the year proceeding to the current assessment year. by the 15th day of the month in respect of tax charged or collected from 1st day to 10th day of the month. by the 15th day of the month in respect of tax charged or collected from 1st day to 10th day of the month. For the tax charged or collected from 11th day to 30th day of the month upto 25th day of month and for the tax charged or collected from the 21st day of the month up to the end of the month shall be deposited within five days from the closing of the month. (b) Dealers with annual tax liability of rupees sixty lacs and above but of less than rupees 40 crore for the year preceding to the current assessment year. By the 20th day of the month in respect tax charged or collected upto 15th day of the month and for the tax charged or collected from the 16th day of the month upto the end of the month, shall be deposited within seven days from the closing of the month (c) Dealers with annual tax liability of rupees twenty thousand and above but below rupees sixty lacs for the assessment year. Monthly - within 14th days from the closing of each month (d) Dealers dealing in all kinds of stones in all their froms whether used as building material otherwise including marble, granite etc. Immediately on completion of transaction of sale or purchase where such goods pass through check-post established under section 78 of the Act. (e) Dealers not covered by clauses (a), (b),(c) and (d) above. Quarterly within 14 days from the closing of each quarter. 10. On perusal of the above notification, it is clear that assessee was entitled to deposit the amount within 14 days refer para (c) which he has accordingly done. 11. In my view, the Tribunal has rightly found that no case is made out for imposing of penalty u/Sec.61 and in my view, it is a finding of fact essentially based on the material on record and no question of law emerges for consideration in the instant petition and this Court does not find any perversity in the order impugned so as to call for interference of this Court, the petition being devoid of merits stands dismissed.