<?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>2004 (7) TMI 617 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162176</link>
    <description>Cast iron pipes fell within &quot;iron and steel&quot; under the Rajasthan sales tax notification, because the statutory definition in section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act included cast iron; declaration form S.T. 18A was therefore required. Penalty for breach of the transit-declaration requirement was not automatic under section 78(5): mens rea was essential, and a technical omission without guilty intention could not justify penal action. As the accompanying documents were genuine and the omission was explained as a bona fide belief that the form was unnecessary, no mala fide intention to evade tax was established and the penalty was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Feb 2014 14:11:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=346619" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (7) TMI 617 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162176</link>
      <description>Cast iron pipes fell within &quot;iron and steel&quot; under the Rajasthan sales tax notification, because the statutory definition in section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act included cast iron; declaration form S.T. 18A was therefore required. Penalty for breach of the transit-declaration requirement was not automatic under section 78(5): mens rea was essential, and a technical omission without guilty intention could not justify penal action. As the accompanying documents were genuine and the omission was explained as a bona fide belief that the form was unnecessary, no mala fide intention to evade tax was established and the penalty was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162176</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>