Strict liability penalties under the FTT regime require no mens rea and must follow mandatory minimum statutory limits.

Delayed payment of foreign travel tax and delayed filing of returns under the FTT regime attracted strict-liability penalties, so proof of mens rea or conscious disregard was not required. The statute itself imposed consequences for compliance beyond the prescribed period, and absence of wilful default did not defeat penalty. The authorities' reduced penalties were found inconsistent with the mandatory statutory framework, because the provisions required application of the prescribed minimum penalty structure. The earlier penalty orders were therefore set aside and penalties were re-determined in accordance with the statute.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether penalty for delayed payment of foreign travel tax and delayed filing of returns under the FTT regime required proof of mens rea or conscious disregard of law. (ii) Whether the penalties imposed under the relevant provisions were liable to be sustained and re-determined in accordance with the statutory minimums.

Issue (i): Whether penalty for delayed payment of foreign travel tax and delayed filing of returns under the FTT regime required proof of mens rea or conscious disregard of law.

Analysis: The delay in depositing collected tax beyond the prescribed thirty-day period attracted the statutory consequence under the FTT scheme. The liability under the relevant penalty provision was treated as one of strict liability, and the Court distinguished authorities relied upon by the applicants on the ground that the facts there were different. In this framework, absence of wilful default or contumacious conduct did not negate penalty where the statute itself prescribed consequences for delayed compliance.

Conclusion: Mens rea was not required, and penalty remained imposable.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalties imposed under the relevant provisions were liable to be sustained and re-determined in accordance with the statutory minimums.

Analysis: The orders of the original and appellate authorities were found to be inconsistent with the statute because the penalties were not aligned with the mandatory consequences prescribed for belated payment of tax and delayed filing of returns. The Court held that the statutory provisions required imposition of penalty not below the prescribed minimum, and the earlier reductions were unsustainable. The matter was therefore finally assessed by applying the statutory minimum penalty structure to the defaults found on record.

Conclusion: The earlier penalty orders were set aside and the penalties were re-determined in accordance with the statute.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed, and the Revenue's position was accepted by substituting the penalties with amounts computed under the mandatory statutory framework.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tax statute creates a strict liability regime and prescribes a mandatory minimum penalty for delayed compliance, penalty can be imposed without proof of mens rea and the authority must apply the statutory minimum rather than a reduced ad hoc amount.

---