TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was held that Section 78(5) of the RST Act 1994 (section 22A(7)(a) of the RST Act, 1954) is the section enacted to provide remedy for loss of revenue and it is not enacted to punish the offender for committing economic offence and, therefore, mens rea is not an essential ingredient for contravention of section 78(2) of the RST Act 1994. That, the breach of section 78(2) would attract the levy of penalty under section 78(5) in cases where the goods in movement have travelled with an incomplete Form No. 18A/18C. Penalty rightly imposed - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner. - S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 478 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 3-11-2016 - Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J. For the Petitioner : Meenal Ghiya For th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 10, the penalty was not imposable on owner. The DC(A) also held that the AO did not come to an apparent finding that the goods were carried with the intention of evasion of tax. 4. On a further appeal, the Tax Board also, without going into the merits, taking into consideration the order of Larger Bench of the Tax Board in the case of ACTO v. M/s Bajrang Timber Mart (supra) upheld the order of DC(A). 5. Learned counsel for the Revenue vehemently contended that there is a clear cut finding by all the Authorities that the declaration form ST-18A was blank in all respect and, therefore, there is violation of R.53 of the Act, and even if the goods accompanied other documents, then too, penalty u/s 78(5) was rightly imposed. Learned coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and, therefore, the AO was well justified in coming to the said conclusion of imposing the penalty. 8. In my view, the judgments of Guljag Industries v. CTO and ACTO v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (supra), are squarely applicable on the facts of instant case. 9. Even otherwise, the Tax Board has merely relied upon the order of Larger Bench of the Tax Board in the case of ACTO v. M/s Bajrang Timber Mart (supra), which has been reversed by the apex court in the case of ACTO v. Bajaj Electricals Limited (supra). 10. Accordingly, in view of above, the issue being squarely covered by the judgments of Guljag Industries v. CTO and ACTO v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (supra), the order of Tax Board is reversed, the petition succeeds, and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
