<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2008 (11) TMI 374 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106189</link>
    <description>A declaration form ST-18A accompanying goods in movement must be completely filled in all material particulars to satisfy the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and Rules; a signed but otherwise blank form does not meet the statutory requirement and undermines the check-post mechanism. Penalty under section 78(5) is a civil, remedial liability, so proof of mens rea is unnecessary. The Court also held that the pre-amendment wording of section 78(5) was wide enough to cover the owner of the goods, and the later amendment was clarificatory. On the facts, the explanation that the omission was due to the transporter or consignor was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2025 17:37:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=143224" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (11) TMI 374 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106189</link>
      <description>A declaration form ST-18A accompanying goods in movement must be completely filled in all material particulars to satisfy the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and Rules; a signed but otherwise blank form does not meet the statutory requirement and undermines the check-post mechanism. Penalty under section 78(5) is a civil, remedial liability, so proof of mens rea is unnecessary. The Court also held that the pre-amendment wording of section 78(5) was wide enough to cover the owner of the goods, and the later amendment was clarificatory. On the facts, the explanation that the omission was due to the transporter or consignor was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT / Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106189</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>