https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166397 Penalty for breach of the goods-declaration requirements was sustained where the ST-18A form was not produced at interception or in response to notice, because mens rea is not an essential ingredient for contravention of the relevant penalty provision. The expression "person in-charge of the goods" was also construed to include the owner, so penalty could validly be imposed on the owner even for a transaction period predating 22 March 2002. The earlier view deleting the penalty on the grounds of no guilty mind and incorrect person liable was held contrary to the settled interpretation of the statute. en-us Thu, 11 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Sep 2014 12:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166397 Penalty for breach of the goods-declaration requirements was sustained where the ST-18A form was not produced at interception or in response to notice, because mens rea is not an essential ingredient for contravention of the relevant penalty provision. The expression "person in-charge of the goods" was also construed to include the owner, so penalty could validly be imposed on the owner even for a transaction period predating 22 March 2002. The earlier view deleting the penalty on the grounds of no guilty mind and incorrect person liable was held contrary to the settled interpretation of the statute. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 11 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166397