Directory penalty provision under sales tax law fails where documents are present and no tax evasion intent can be inferred.

Penalty under section 78(10A) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act was held unsustainable where the vehicle carried all relevant documents at the time of checking, because the provision was treated as directory rather than mandatory and no intention to evade tax could be presumed on those facts. The matter was also considered covered by an earlier Division Bench view on the same provision, so the revision failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under section 78(10A) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 was exigible when all relevant documents were available at the time of checking of the vehicle and no intention to evade tax could be inferred.

Analysis: The documents accompanying the vehicle were found to be available at the time of checking. The legal position applied was that section 78(10A) is directory and not mandatory because the provision uses the word "may". On the same reasoning, where the requisite documents are present, an intention to evade tax cannot be presumed. The case was held to be covered by the earlier Division Bench view on the same statutory provisions.

Conclusion: Penalty under section 78(10A) was not sustainable and the revision failed.

---