Mens rea is not required for penalty when violation of goods-document requirements is proved under sales tax law.

For penalty under Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, proof of violation of Section 78(2) was treated as sufficient, and mens rea was held not to be a necessary ingredient. Applying the Larger Bench view and the Supreme Court ruling in Guljag Industries, the court upheld penalty where the Tax Board's findings showed discrepancies in the goods documents, preparation of the bill after interception, and use of false or forged documents to evade tax. Those factual findings were treated as conclusive on the record, so the penalty was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether mens rea is a necessary ingredient for imposition of penalty under Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, and whether the penalty could be sustained on the facts found by the Tax Board.

Analysis: The Larger Bench answer, together with the Supreme Court's ruling in Guljag Industries, was applied to hold that mens rea is not relevant for determining liability to penalty under Section 78(5) when violation of Section 78(2) is proved. The Tax Board's factual findings showed material discrepancies in the documents accompanying the goods, preparation of the bill after interception, and use of false or forged documents to evade tax. Those findings were treated as conclusive on the record.

Conclusion: Mens rea was not required, and the penalty under Section 78(5) was rightly sustained. The question of law was answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: For penalty under Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, proof of violation of Section 78(2) is sufficient and mens rea is not a necessary ingredient.

---