Transit-document penalty requires proof of contravention, not mens rea, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

Penalty for non-accompaniment of the prescribed transit form was treated as a civil liability arising on proof of contravention of the transit-document requirement, and proof of mens rea was not required. The authority was also expected to allow the assessee an opportunity to produce the necessary documents under the relevant rules. Because the orders below did not properly apply that legal position, the impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remanded to the assessing authority for fresh consideration after hearing the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 could be imposed for non-accompaniment of ST-18A form in transit without proof of mens rea, and whether the matter required remand for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The governing law treated penalty under Section 78(5) as a civil liability arising on proof of contravention of Section 78(2), and not as a proceeding requiring proof of mens rea. The authority was required to give an opportunity to produce the necessary documents under Rule 55(1) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1995. On the facts, the orders of the authorities below did not properly proceed in accordance with that legal position, and the matter was required to be reconsidered after giving hearing to the assessee.

Conclusion: Mens rea was not required to be proved for imposition of penalty under Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. The impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remanded to the assessing authority for fresh orders in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The legal issue on mens rea was answered against the assessee, but the penalty controversy was left for fresh adjudication by the assessing authority after hearing the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty for violation of the transit-document requirement under Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 is attracted on proof of contravention under Section 78(2), and proof of mens rea is not an essential ingredient.

---