9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 674X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xes Officer, Flying squad, Raniwada (hereinafter referred to as the assessing authority ) whereby the learned assessing authority imposed penalty of Rs. 87,875 against the respondent. It arises in the following circumstances: On July 6, 2000, the vehicle No. GJ-9/V-7127 (hereinafter referred to as the vehicle in question), which was carrying 69 carton of yarn belonging to the respondent M/s. Rishab Special Yarns Limited, was intercepted and checked by the petitioner-Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer and during checking, it was found that the declaration form S.T. 18C was not accompanied with the goods. Since the goods in transit were not accompanied with the declaration form S.T. 18C, therefore, a notice dated July 6, 2000 under sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing authority dated July 17, 2000 (annexure 3) holding inter alia that the respondent was guilty of violating the provisions of section 78(2) of the Act of 1994. Aggrieved from the said judgment dated March 18, 2002 (annexure 4) and order dated July 17, 2000 (annexure 3), the respondent preferred second appeal before the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, and the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, through impugned judgment dated May 6, 2002 allowed the appeal of the respondent and set aside the findings recorded by the learned first appellate authority through judgment dated March 18, 2002 (annexure 4) and the findings of the learned assessing authority through order dated July 17, 2000 (annexure 3). The Rajasthan Tax Board further came to the conc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcial Taxes Officer v. Mahaveer Chand Jain and Company [2000] 120 STC 212 (SB judgment) (v) Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. J.P. Singh Sons (S.B. Civil Sales Tax Revision No. 823 of 2002 decided on July 6, 2004 Reported at [2006] 146 STC 382 (Raj). I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and gone through the entire materials available on record. There is no dispute on the point that on July 6, 2000 when the vehicle in question carrying the goods in question of the respondent was checked by the petitioner, the declaration form S.T. 18C was not found. However, rest papers were found valid and correct one. There is also no dispute on the point that later on along with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oncur to constitute the crime). Meaning thereby an act does not make a man guilty without guilty intention to do the guilty act which is made penal by the statute or common law. This court in Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal [2001] 123 STC 172 has observed that existence 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. 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 intenti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
