Mandatory transit declaration forms trigger strict civil penalty when goods are moved without ST-18-A, and actual notice cures service defects.

Rajasthan HC held that transporting goods without the mandatory ST-18-A declaration form under Section 22-A(7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 attracts penalty as a strict civil consequence, and mens rea is not required. Because the goods were intercepted without the prescribed form and none was produced later, the penalty was sustained. The Court also rejected the natural justice challenge: although notice was served on the driver-in-charge, the assessee had actual notice, filed a security bond through its authorised representative, and submitted a reply. On those facts, the proceedings were not vitiated for want of service or reasonable opportunity.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether penalty was leviable for transportation of goods without the mandatory declaration form ST-18-A under Section 22-A(7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954. (ii) Whether the penalty was vitiated for want of proper notice and breach of natural justice.

Issue (i): Whether penalty was leviable for transportation of goods without the mandatory declaration form ST-18-A under Section 22-A(7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required the goods in transit to be accompanied by the prescribed declaration form along with the other documents. The goods were intercepted without ST-18-A and no such form was produced thereafter. The Court applied the settled principle that contravention of the mandatory transit-document requirement attracts penalty as a civil liability and that mens rea is not an essential ingredient where the statute creates strict liability for such breach.

Conclusion: The penalty was rightly imposed and sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty was vitiated for want of proper notice and breach of natural justice.

Analysis: Though the notice was addressed to the driver-in-charge, the assessee itself entered the proceedings by filing a security bond through its power of attorney holder and later filing a reply. On these facts, the assessee had actual notice of the proceedings and participated in them. The Court treated service on the person in charge as sufficient in the circumstances and held that the plea of non-service lost significance once the assessee had appeared and responded.

Conclusion: The proceedings were not vitiated for want of notice or violation of natural justice.

Final Conclusion: The revision petition failed, and the penalty order was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are transported without the statutorily required declaration form, penalty may be imposed as a strict civil consequence without proof of mens rea, and the requirement of reasonable opportunity is satisfied when the assessee has actual notice and participates in the proceedings.

---