https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221592 Penalty under Section 78 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 was discussed in the context of branch transfer goods, where Form ST-18A was not required to accompany the goods before 30-3-2000. A mere discrepancy in the value shown in accompanying documents did not, by itself, establish that the documents were false or forged within Section 78(4). Such a discrepancy could amount to an inadvertent error and, before penalty, required lawful enquiry and a reasonable opportunity of hearing. On these facts, the penalty was set aside and the revision failed. en-us Wed, 16 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Jul 2014 14:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221592 Penalty under Section 78 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 was discussed in the context of branch transfer goods, where Form ST-18A was not required to accompany the goods before 30-3-2000. A mere discrepancy in the value shown in accompanying documents did not, by itself, establish that the documents were false or forged within Section 78(4). Such a discrepancy could amount to an inadvertent error and, before penalty, required lawful enquiry and a reasonable opportunity of hearing. On these facts, the penalty was set aside and the revision failed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 16 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221592