9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Traders, dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dated 25.09.2001 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Bikaner in Appeal No. 658/672/701/129 RST/Suratgarh/Sriganganagar/ Raisinghnagar/97-98/98-99-2000. 2. The relevant findings of the learned Tax Board in the order daetd 22.07.2003 are quoted below for ready reference:- 3. Mr.V.K.Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Revenue submits that the controversy involved in the present sales tax revision petition is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Ward II, Circle-D, Jodhpur Vs. M/s.Nahar Granite P.Ltd, Jodhpur [S.B. Civil (ST) Revision Petition No.57/2006 decided on 25.05.2015. 4. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition of law with regard to the imposition of penalty under Section 78 (5) of the Act is that there is no requirement in law for Revenue to establish mens rea on the part of assessee in these penalty proceedings under Section 78 (5) of the Act, has been settled by the catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and has been reiterated by the Full Bench of this Court in a recent case decided upon a reference in the case of ACTO Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (S.T.R. No.92/1999 along connection revisions, decided 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In the circumstances, we are of the view that mens rea is not an essential element in the matter of imposition of penalty under Section 78 (5)." 35. In view of the aforesaid discussion, our answers to the questions referred, are as follows: - (i) The requirement of mens rea is not relevant for the purpose of determining the liability for penalty, in terms of Section 78 (5) of the RST Act, 1994. (ii)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 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 Ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
