Penalty for incomplete transit declaration sustained; civil liability applies, mens rea is unnecessary, and owner liability extends to the unamended provision.

A declaration form ST-18A accompanying goods in movement must be completely filled in all material particulars to satisfy the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and Rules; a signed but otherwise blank form does not meet the statutory requirement and undermines the check-post mechanism. Penalty under section 78(5) is a civil, remedial liability, so proof of mens rea is unnecessary. The Court also held that the pre-amendment wording of section 78(5) was wide enough to cover the owner of the goods, and the later amendment was clarificatory. On the facts, the explanation that the omission was due to the transporter or consignor was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 was exigible where goods in movement were accompanied by a declaration form ST-18A that was signed but left blank in material particulars, and whether the owner of the goods could be penalized under the unamended provision.

Analysis: The scheme of section 78(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 read with rule 53 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1995 required goods in movement to be supported by a declaration form ST-18A completely filled in all respects. A form that is signed but left blank in material particulars does not satisfy the statutory requirement and defeats the purpose of the check-post mechanism. The Court applied the earlier reasoning in Guljag Industries to hold that penalty under section 78(5) is a civil, remedial liability and does not depend on proof of mens rea. The Court further held that, even under the pre-amendment text of section 78(5), the expression used was wide enough to include the owner of the goods, and the later amendment was clarificatory. The explanation that the omission was attributable to the transporter or consignor was rejected on the facts as an afterthought.

Conclusion: Penalty was rightly imposed under section 78(5), mens rea was not required, and the owner of the goods was liable even under the unamended provision.

---