Blank transit declaration alone cannot sustain penalty where accompanying transport documents are genuine and complete.

Revision under section 86 was treated as maintainable where the Tax Board set aside penalty, allowing the Revenue to seek scrutiny on merits. On transit documents, a blank or incompletely filled ST 18A form did not by itself justify detention of goods or penalty under section 78(5) when the bill, bilty and other prescribed papers were genuine and supplied the required particulars. The provision was treated as an anti-evasion measure, and penalty required some prima facie material of mens rea or tax evasion rather than a mere technical lapse.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revision petition under section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 was maintainable against the Tax Board's order setting aside penalty under section 78(5); (ii) Whether a blank or incompletely filled declaration form ST 18A, when accompanied by the bill and bilty and other prescribed transit documents, by itself justified detention of goods and imposition of penalty under section 78(5).

Issue (i): Whether the revision petition under section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 was maintainable against the Tax Board's order setting aside penalty under section 78(5)

Analysis: The revisional challenge was held to involve a mixed question of fact and law arising from a final finding of the Tax Board. The Court treated the Revenue as entitled to pursue revision where the Tax Board had interfered with penalty, and held that the matter could be examined on merits under section 86.

Conclusion: The revision petition was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether a blank or incompletely filled declaration form ST 18A, when accompanied by the bill and bilty and other prescribed transit documents, by itself justified detention of goods and imposition of penalty under section 78(5)

Analysis: The Court held that rule 53 is meant to ensure tracking and verification of notified goods in transit and that the form ST 18A is largely a record-keeping declaration whose particulars are ordinarily reflected in the accompanying bill and bilty. Mere blankness or incompleteness of the form, without doubt about the genuineness of the accompanying documents or other circumstances suggesting evasion, does not by itself establish mens rea or guilty intent. Penalty provisions under section 78(5) were emphasised as anti-evasion measures, not revenue-raising devices, and prolonged detention for technical lapses was disapproved.

Conclusion: Mere absence, blankness, or incomplete filling of form ST 18A, by itself and in the presence of genuine accompanying documents, did not justify penalty under section 78(5).

Final Conclusion: The Revenue failed to make out a case for interference with the Tax Board's order, and the penalty was not sustainable on the facts found.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty for transit-document defects under section 78(5) cannot be imposed solely for a blank or incomplete declaration form where the accompanying documents disclose the requisite particulars and there is no prima facie material showing mens rea or tax evasion.

---