9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 790X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing authority in terms of Rule 21(5) of the Rajasthan VAT Rules, 2006, to specify such validity period for the said Form. - Petition remanded back - S.B. CIVIL (VAT) REVISION PETITION NO.2/2014 - - - Dated:- 3-3-2016 - DR. VINEET KOTHARI, J. For The Revenue : Mr.Dinesh Godara on behalf of Mr.V.K.Mathur For The Assessee : Mr.Lalit Pareek on behalf of Mr.Dinesh Mehta BY THE COURT (ORAL): 1. The present revision petition under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 has been filed by the Revenue against the judgment and order dated 30.07.2013 passed by the learned Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer in Appeal No.1750/2012/Bhilwara Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion, Bhilwara Vs. M/s.Shri Prakash Synth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is no question of law arises in the present case at the instance of the Revenue. 4. In rejoinder, Mr.Dinesh Godara appearing for Mr.V.K.Mathur, learned counsel for the Revenue submits that not only the ground of validity period of declaration form was involved in the present case, but certain material particulars in the aforesaid form were also not filled up, and that was the only ground for imposition of penalty, and therefore, at the most, the matter deserves to be remanded back to the assessing authority, in the light of the aforesaid judgment of this Court in the case of C.T.O., Anti Evasion, Dungarpur Vs. M/s.Noble Enterprises (supra) . The Full Bench of this Court in ACTO Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (supra) held as u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... function is assigned not to the officer at the checkpost 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. (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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
