https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263323 For penalty under Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, proof of violation of Section 78(2) was treated as sufficient, and mens rea was held not to be a necessary ingredient. Applying the Larger Bench view and the Supreme Court ruling in Guljag Industries, the court upheld penalty where the Tax Board's findings showed discrepancies in the goods documents, preparation of the bill after interception, and use of false or forged documents to evade tax. Those factual findings were treated as conclusive on the record, so the penalty was sustained. en-us Thu, 28 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Jun 2016 10:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263323 For penalty under Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, proof of violation of Section 78(2) was treated as sufficient, and mens rea was held not to be a necessary ingredient. Applying the Larger Bench view and the Supreme Court ruling in Guljag Industries, the court upheld penalty where the Tax Board's findings showed discrepancies in the goods documents, preparation of the bill after interception, and use of false or forged documents to evade tax. Those factual findings were treated as conclusive on the record, so the penalty was sustained. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 28 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=263323