TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 1050X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on July 13, 1995 and on or before March 30, 2000, in the light of the notification, referred to above, there was no requirement of carryingdeclaration form ST-18A and once there was no requirement or necessity of carrying the declaration form ST-18A in a case of branch/stock transfer, then penalty under section 22A(7) is not required to be levied. Admittedly, it is a case of branch/stock transfer and therefore, on this alternative plea and in the light of the judgment in assessees' own case reported in [2015 (11) TMI 1078 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT], and the judgment rendered by this court in the case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Kamlesh Kumar Rajesh Kumar [2013 (3) TMI 631 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT], the instant revision petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of penalty under sub-section (5) of section 78 on proven violation of sub-section (2) of section 78 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 ? (iii) Whether in view of the amendment to rule 55 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1995 pursuant to the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. D. P. Metals [2001] 124 STC 611 (SC), on sufficient cause being shown whether any authority empowered would be justified in not imposing the penalty in the absence of mens rea being proved ? (iv) Whether the mens rea is required to be proved as a necessary ingredient for imposing of penalty under sub-section (5) of section 78 on proved violation of sub-section (2) of section 78 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 ? ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n ordered to be listed before the Bench having jurisdiction to decide the matters, in accordance with the opinion given and the answers provided by the Larger Bench on such opinion and accordingly the instant revision petition is being decided. The brief facts, which can be noticed, are that mobil oil of the respondent-assessee was being carried in vehicle No. DIL-4500 on July 13, 1995 from IOC, Delhi to IOC, Jaipur and noticing that the declaration form ST-18A was not available with the vehicle, the officer, who intercepted the vehicle, sought to levy penalty and accordingly not satisfied with the explanation, imposed penalty to the extent of ₹ 1,95,000. The matter was carried in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h 30, 2000, carrying of declaration form ST-18A was not required and thus penalty is not required to be levied on account of this alternative plea. He relied upon the judgment rendered by this court in the case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Kamlesh Kumar Rajesh Kumar [2015] 77 VST 405 (Raj) and Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Flying Squad-1, Jaipur v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. [2006] 15 Tax Up Date 207 (Raj). I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and in so far as the issue of mens rea is concerned, when the Larger Bench of this court has already opined that mens rea is not essential, therefore, the issue, with regard to mens rea, is decided in favour of the Revenue, but in the instan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
