9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 616X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Udaipur-Ahmedabad route near Ratanpur (Dungarpur) and during checking, it was found that the declaration form ST-18C was not accompanied with the goods. Since the goods in transit were not accompanied with declaration form ST-18C, therefore, a notice under section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1994") for violation of the provisions of section 78(2) of the Act of 1994 was issued by the assessing authority to the respondent-dealer as to why penalty be not imposed. A reply to the said show cause notice was filed by the respondent on February 12, 2000 stating, inter alia, that all papers were available at the time when the checking was made by the petitionerAssistant Commercial Taxes Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the said judgment dated March 11, 2002 (annexure 2), the petitioner preferred appeal before the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer and the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, through impugned judgment dated March 24, 2003 (annexure 3) dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and affirmed the findings recorded by the learned first appellate authority through judgment dated March 11, 2002 (annexure 2). Hence, this revision petition. 3.. In this revision, the main case as put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in cases when at the time of checking, the declaration form ST-18C is not found accompanied with the goods, the provisions of penalty clauses embodied in section 78(5) of the Act of 1994 for violation of the provisions of se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner, the declaration form ST-18C was not accompanied with the goods and there is also no dispute on the point that rest papers were found valid and correct one. 7.. There is also no dispute on the point that later on, along with the reply to the show cause notice, the declaration form ST-18C was produced by the respondent-dealer. 8.. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) through judgment dated March 11, 2002 (annexure 2) came to the conclusion that since the requisite declaration form ST-18C was produced by the respondentdealer along with the reply to the show cause notice and since rest papers were found valid and correct one and not bogus one, therefore, it cannot reasonably be inferred that the respondent-dealer was having any intentio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of mens rea on the part of dealer committing breach for avoidance or evasion of payment of tax is sine qua non for levying penalty for such breach which otherwise is of technical nature. 12.. Thus, it can be concluded that mens rea is an essential ingredient for imposing penalty under section 78(5) of the Act of 1994 for violating the provisions of section 78(2) of the Act of 1994. Furthermore, a difference can be made in respect of intentional contravention of any provision or breach of any provision technically without mens rea. It is made clear that contravention of any provision, which is not accompanied by mens rea, may be treated as technical one and for that breach, provisions of penalty clauses embodied in section 78(5) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
