https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165604 Penalty under section 78(10)(a) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 was not sustainable where the requisite documents under section 78(2)(b) were available and produced at the time of interception and the tax had already been paid. The absence of the Commercial Taxes Department check-post seal on those documents was treated as a directory requirement, not a mandatory one. On the concurrent factual findings, no mens rea or intention to evade tax could be inferred, so deletion of the penalty was upheld. en-us Fri, 08 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Aug 2014 15:19:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165604 Penalty under section 78(10)(a) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 was not sustainable where the requisite documents under section 78(2)(b) were available and produced at the time of interception and the tax had already been paid. The absence of the Commercial Taxes Department check-post seal on those documents was treated as a directory requirement, not a mandatory one. On the concurrent factual findings, no mens rea or intention to evade tax could be inferred, so deletion of the penalty was upheld. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 08 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165604