https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190063 Mens rea was not a sine qua non for penalty under the relevant sales tax provision because, in fiscal statutes, the legislature may impose strict liability and a fixed penalty for statutory breach. The earlier Mutha Premraj decision controlled the issue, while Hindustan Steel was treated as of limited assistance because it had been remanded and did not state a universal rule against penalty. Blank or incomplete Form ST 18-A constituted a breach of the statutory requirement, so the penalty was justified. The Tax Board's deletion of penalty was therefore set aside, and the penalty imposed by the assessing authority and upheld in appeal was restored. en-us Tue, 14 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 02 Feb 2017 17:52:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190063 Mens rea was not a sine qua non for penalty under the relevant sales tax provision because, in fiscal statutes, the legislature may impose strict liability and a fixed penalty for statutory breach. The earlier Mutha Premraj decision controlled the issue, while Hindustan Steel was treated as of limited assistance because it had been remanded and did not state a universal rule against penalty. Blank or incomplete Form ST 18-A constituted a breach of the statutory requirement, so the penalty was justified. The Tax Board's deletion of penalty was therefore set aside, and the penalty imposed by the assessing authority and upheld in appeal was restored. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 14 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190063