<?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 (8) TMI 674 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163471</link>
    <description>Penalty under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act for non-compliance with transport-document requirements was held not to arise automatically from the absence of the prescribed declaration form. Where the remaining documents were valid and the form was later produced, the breach was treated as technical rather than deliberate. The governing principle stated is that mens rea is required for penalty when the default is not shown to be intended to evade tax, so a mere procedural lapse does not justify mechanical imposition of penalty. On those facts, the assessee&#039;s challenge succeeded and no substantial question of law was found to arise.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2014 11:14:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=350997" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (8) TMI 674 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163471</link>
      <description>Penalty under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act for non-compliance with transport-document requirements was held not to arise automatically from the absence of the prescribed declaration form. Where the remaining documents were valid and the form was later produced, the breach was treated as technical rather than deliberate. The governing principle stated is that mens rea is required for penalty when the default is not shown to be intended to evade tax, so a mere procedural lapse does not justify mechanical imposition of penalty. On those facts, the assessee&#039;s challenge succeeded and no substantial question of law was found to arise.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163471</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>