https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157609 Penalty under section 16(1)(e) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act required proof of mens rea, and the assessing authority bore the burden of establishing it; a mere rejection of the assessee's explanation was insufficient. On the facts, the explanation was found plausible and mens rea was absent, so penalty was not leviable. Interest under section 11B could arise only where there was a valid tax liability under the charging provisions; because the goods were exempt and tax was not lawfully leviable, the amount deposited did not attract interest. The Tribunal's view was upheld on both penalty and interest. en-us Wed, 22 Sep 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Oct 2013 16:25:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157609 Penalty under section 16(1)(e) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act required proof of mens rea, and the assessing authority bore the burden of establishing it; a mere rejection of the assessee's explanation was insufficient. On the facts, the explanation was found plausible and mens rea was absent, so penalty was not leviable. Interest under section 11B could arise only where there was a valid tax liability under the charging provisions; because the goods were exempt and tax was not lawfully leviable, the amount deposited did not attract interest. The Tribunal's view was upheld on both penalty and interest. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 22 Sep 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157609