9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 1050X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hief Justice to resolve and decide the following questions framed after noticing a conflict of opinions in the Division Bench judgments of this court in Parashwanath Granite India Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan (D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4250 of 1998 decided on June 2, 2004) [2006] 144 STC 271 (Raj); [2005] (1) RLR 291, and in Maharana Talkies v. State of Rajasthan (D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 858 of 1994, decided on November 29, 2004), reported in [2004] 19 Sales Tax Today 239, as well as Lalji Mulji Transport Company v. State of Rajasthan [2002] 127 STC 365 (Raj); [2002] 3 RLR 255, as follows: "(i) Whether requirement of mens rea is relevant for the purpose of determining the liability for penalty in ter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 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 to rule 55 of the RST Rules, 1995, in pursuance to the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. D. P. Metals [2001] 124 STC 611 (SC), authorises the authority empowered, to make an enquiry of violation of section 78(2), and not to adjudicate as 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-sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osition of penalty and the judgment of the Tax Board on merits deserves to be reversed. She also relied on the judgment of honourable apex court in the case of Guljag Industries v. Commercial Taxes Officer reported in [2007] 9 VST 1 (SC); [2007] 293 ITR 584 (SC); [2007] 18 Tax Up-date 321. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee contends that though in the light of the judgment of the honourable apex court and this court in Larger Bench, mens rea is not essential but the admitted facts are that the vehicle was intercepted on July 13, 1995 on which particular day, there was no requirement of carrying the declaration form ST-18A in the light of the Notification No. 4(1)FD/Tax/Div ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
