https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162943 Penalty under section 65 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 requires proof of conscious concealment, deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars, or other guilty intent to evade tax. Where canteen sales were recorded in the regular books, tax and interest were paid after notice, and the dispute concerned only the assessee's bona fide belief that the activity was not taxable, penalty could not be sustained. The rejection of the assessee's taxability argument did not, by itself, establish mens rea or mala fide intention. The absence of any penalty under the registration default provision also supported the conclusion that no deliberate evasion was proved. en-us Mon, 30 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Dec 2014 11:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162943 Penalty under section 65 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 requires proof of conscious concealment, deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars, or other guilty intent to evade tax. Where canteen sales were recorded in the regular books, tax and interest were paid after notice, and the dispute concerned only the assessee's bona fide belief that the activity was not taxable, penalty could not be sustained. The rejection of the assessee's taxability argument did not, by itself, establish mens rea or mala fide intention. The absence of any penalty under the registration default provision also supported the conclusion that no deliberate evasion was proved. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 30 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162943