Mens rea is required for penalty under sales tax law; an inadvertent omission later rectified cannot justify punishment.

Penalty under section 10-A(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act requires intentional default, not a mere inadvertent omission. The registration records showed that the departmental authorities had not noticed the absence of a new-form registration certificate, and the omission concerning packing materials was treated as an unintentional slip that was later rectified by amendment. On those facts, the necessary element of mens rea was not established, so the penalty could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under section 10-A(1) of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 could be sustained in the absence of intentional omission on the part of the assessee.

Analysis: The registration records showed that the departmental authorities had not noticed that the certificate of registration in the new form had not been issued, and the omission relating to packing materials was found to be an unintentional slip that had been rectified by amendment. Penalty under section 10-A(1) was held to require an element of intentional default, as penalty cannot be imposed for a mere inadvertent omission without mens rea.

Conclusion: The penalty was not sustainable, as the findings did not establish any intentional omission or mens rea against the assessee.

---