Mens rea not required for sales tax penalty, but no penalty can stand where the statutory form requirement was absent.

Penalty under section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 does not require proof of mens rea; a breach of the statutory requirement is sufficient where the provision so operates. However, penalty under section 22A(7) could not be sustained in a branch or stock transfer case for the relevant period because carrying Form ST-18A was not then required under the applicable notification. The revision therefore failed overall, as the penalty could not be upheld on the facts despite the conclusion that a guilty mind was not an essential ingredient for section 78(5).

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether mens rea is relevant or required to be proved for imposing penalty under section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. (ii) Whether penalty under section 22A(7) was leviable in a branch or stock transfer case where, for the relevant period, carrying Form ST-18A was not required.

Issue (i): Whether mens rea is relevant or required to be proved for imposing penalty under section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994.

Analysis: The larger bench answer governing the matter had already settled that penalty under section 78(5) is attracted on proof of violation under section 78(2), and the presence or absence of mens rea is not the decisive requirement. The statutory scheme treats the breach as sufficient for penalty and does not make proof of a guilty mind an essential ingredient.

Conclusion: Mens rea is not required to be proved for imposition of penalty under section 78(5); this issue is answered in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty under section 22A(7) was leviable in a branch or stock transfer case where, for the relevant period, carrying Form ST-18A was not required.

Analysis: The vehicle was intercepted on 13 July 1995, and the transaction was a branch or stock transfer. In the light of the notification relied upon, for transactions prior to 30 March 2000 there was no requirement to carry Form ST-18A in such cases. Where the statutory requirement itself was absent for the relevant period, penalty could not be sustained merely on interception without the form.

Conclusion: Penalty was not leviable on this ground; this issue is answered in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed because the penalty could not be sustained on the facts of the case, notwithstanding the ruling that mens rea was not a necessary ingredient under section 78(5).

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty provisions may operate without proof of mens rea where the statute so provides, but penalty cannot be imposed when the alleged default does not exist for the relevant period under the applicable notification or statutory requirement.

---