9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ACTO Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (2015 (11) TMI 1078 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT) - matter deserves to be remanded back - Decided in favour of Revenue. - S.B. Civil (ST) Revision Petition No.57/2008 - - - Dated:- 25-5-2015 - Dr. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI, J For the Petitioner : Mr. V.K. Mathur For the Respondent : Mr. Dinesh Mehta ORDER BY THE COURT (ORAL): 1. The learned Tax Board by the impugned order dated 16.07.2007 had rejected the appeal of the Revenue and upheld the deletion of penalty under Section 78 (5) of the RST Act upon checking of goods viz. zink ingots on the ground that ST-18A Form was not accompanying the goods in transit, and thus upheld the order dated 07.07.2006, setting aside such penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cided on 26.02.2015) reported in MANU/RH/0327/2015, in which the Full Bench, headed by Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, held as under:- 34. The suspicion or doubt on the documents to be false or forged, per se, does not attract levy of penalty under sub-section (5) of Section 78 of the RST Act, 1994. In such case, an opportunity is to be given under Rule 55 (1) of the RST Rules, 1995, to a person, to produce the required documents and/or declaration forms completed in all respects, when the goods enters or leaves the nearest check-post of the State. It is only when a person despite giving such an opportunity, is not able to produce the document and/or declaration forms completed in all respects, when the goods enters or leaves the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r sub-section (5) of section 78, on proving violation of sub-section (2) of Section 78 of the RST Act, 1994. (iii)The amendment of Rule 55 of the RST Rules, 1995, in pursuance to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan and Another v. M/s D.P. Metals (supra), authorises the authority empowered, to make an enquiry of violation of Section 78 (2), and not to adjudicate a to whether the mens rea was present in violation of sub-section (2) of Section 78, for imposing penalty under sub-section (5) of Section 78 of the RST Act, 1994. (iv)The mens rea is not required to be proved as necessary ingredient for imposition of penalty under sub-section (5) of Section 78, on proving violation of sub-section (2) of Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
