9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1994 has been filed by the Revenue against the judgment and order dated 22.07.2003 passed by the learned Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer in Appeal No.188/2002/Sriganganagar Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion I, Sriganganagar Vs. M/s.Laxmi Cotton 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 con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etting aside the penalty order dated 11.10.2005. The second appeal preferred by the petitioner Revenue also came to be dismissed by the learned Tax Board vide order dated 16.07.2007. 3. The petitioner- Revenue has filed the present revision petition in this Court aggrieved by the said order of Tax Board. 4. The position 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of Section 78, that; In the present case also the statute provides for a hearing. However, that hearing is only to find out whether the assessee has contravened Section 78 (2) and not to find out evasion of tax which function is assigned not to the officer at the check-post but to the AO in assessment proceedings. 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
