Fiscal penalty for missing transport declaration upheld; statutory breach alone was enough and transporter fault did not excuse non-compliance.

In fiscal penalty proceedings, breach of a mandatory transport-document requirement can itself attract civil liability, and mens rea is not required unless the statute expressly so provides. Where goods were carried without the prescribed declaration form, the statutory contravention was sufficient to sustain penalty. The assessee could not avoid liability by blaming the transporter, because the obligation remained to ensure that the goods were accompanied by correct prescribed documents. Incorrect particulars in the bill or failure to carry the declaration amounted to non-compliance, so the penalty was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether penalty under Section 22-A(7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 for carrying goods without the prescribed declaration form could be imposed only if mens rea to evade tax was proved. (ii) Whether the assessee could avoid penalty on the ground that the transporter committed the omission or that the declaration contained incorrect particulars.

Issue (i): The statutory scheme of Section 22-A(3) and Section 22-A(7) required the person in charge of the goods to carry and produce the prescribed declaration with the goods. The Court relied on settled fiscal law that penalty for breach of a statutory obligation in tax matters is a civil liability and, unless the statute so requires, proof of criminal mens rea is not necessary. Where the goods were found without the required declaration, the breach itself attracted the penal consequence.

Conclusion: Mens rea was not an essential ingredient for penalty in the facts of the case, and the penalty was sustainable once the statutory breach was established.

Issue (ii): The obligation under the Act was to ensure that the goods were accompanied by the prescribed declaration and that the documents produced were correct. The assessee could not shift responsibility to the transporter when the statutory requirement remained unfulfilled. Incorrect particulars in the bill or failure to carry the declaration amounted to non-compliance with the mandatory transport-document requirements.

Conclusion: The assessee remained liable for the breach notwithstanding any omission by the transporter, and the penalty was rightly imposed.

Final Conclusion: The revisions failed because the statutory contraventions were proved, and the penalty orders were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: In fiscal penalty proceedings, where the statute makes carriage and production of prescribed documents mandatory, liability arises on proof of the statutory breach itself and the absence of mens rea does not defeat the penalty unless the enactment expressly requires such proof.

---