Mens rea not required for penalty on delayed tax compliance, and remand limits were not exceeded.

Penalty for delayed filing of Foreign Travel Tax returns and late deposit of collected tax was sustained because the statutory scheme treated proof of the default itself as sufficient; absence of mens rea did not defeat liability under the governing provisions. The fresh order after remand also remained valid because the authority confined itself to the remitted question, examined whether the notice was within time, and imposed penalty only on the established defaults. The remand was not exceeded, as no extraneous issue was decided.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether penalty for delayed filing of Foreign Travel Tax returns and delayed payment of tax was sustainable in the absence of mens rea. (ii) Whether the fresh order passed after remand travelled beyond the scope of the remand.

Issue (i): Whether penalty for delayed filing of Foreign Travel Tax returns and delayed payment of tax was sustainable in the absence of mens rea.

Analysis: The default in filing monthly returns and in depositing the tax collected within the prescribed time was established on the admitted and repeated delays. The legal regime under Section 38(3) of the Finance Act, 1979 and Rule 10A(1) of the Foreign Travel Tax, 1979 made the assessee liable to penalty on proof of the default itself. The existence of a technical explanation for delay did not displace liability, and mens rea was not a necessary ingredient for imposition of penalty under the governing provisions.

Conclusion: The penalty was validly imposed, and the contention based on absence of mens rea failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the fresh order passed after remand travelled beyond the scope of the remand.

Analysis: The remand required the Original Authority to decide the matter afresh after hearing the petitioner and to examine the timeliness of the show cause notice in the context of Rule 10A(1) of the Foreign Travel Tax, 1979. The subsequent order considered the remitted question, found the notice within time, and then imposed penalty on the established defaults. The order therefore remained within the limits of the remand and did not introduce any extraneous determination.

Conclusion: The impugned order did not exceed the scope of the remand.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed on merits, and the penalty order, as affirmed in revision, stood undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a fiscal statute creates liability for default in timely compliance, penalty may be imposed on proof of the statutory breach itself without proof of mens rea, and an authority acting strictly within the terms of a remand does not exceed jurisdiction by deciding the remitted issue afresh.

---