Strict liability in sales tax penalty matters: blank Form ST 18-A justified penalty without proof of mens rea.

Mens rea was not a sine qua non for penalty under the relevant sales tax provision because, in fiscal statutes, the legislature may impose strict liability and a fixed penalty for statutory breach. The earlier Mutha Premraj decision controlled the issue, while Hindustan Steel was treated as of limited assistance because it had been remanded and did not state a universal rule against penalty. Blank or incomplete Form ST 18-A constituted a breach of the statutory requirement, so the penalty was justified. The Tax Board's deletion of penalty was therefore set aside, and the penalty imposed by the assessing authority and upheld in appeal was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether mens rea is a necessary condition for imposing penalty under the relevant sales tax provision, and whether incomplete or blank Form ST 18-A could justify deletion of penalty.

Analysis: The Court held that the earlier decision in Mutha Premraj governed the controversy and that the presence of mens rea is not a sine qua non for penalty for violation of statutory provisions in fiscal matters. Reliance on Hindustan Steel was held to be of limited assistance because that matter was remanded and did not lay down a final rule excluding penalty in all cases. The Court also relied on the principle that in revenue statutes the legislature may provide strict liability and a fixed penalty without requiring proof of guilty intention. On the facts, blank or incomplete Form ST 18-A amounted to a statutory breach and supported the penalty.

Conclusion: Mens rea was not required, and the deletion of penalty by the Tax Board was held to be ; the penalty imposed by the assessing authority and upheld in appeal was restored.

---