TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (11) TMI 895
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....respondents JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on April 16, 1999 Vehicle No. HR-47/4298 was checked and it was found that declaration form ST-18A was not accompanied with other relevant documents of the goods. Therefore, a notice to show cause was given to the respondent as to why penalty may not be levied under section 78(5) of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, order could not have been passed against owner of the goods and it could have been passed only against incharge of the vehicle/goods. Being aggrieved with the same, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Rajasthan Tax Board, which was dismissed vide judgment dated April 3, 2007, which is under challenge in this revision petition preferred on behalf of the Revenue. Submission of the learned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore, this revision petition be allowed and orders passed by both the appellate authorities be set aside. No one is present on behalf of the respondent despite service of notice. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the reasons assigned by both the appellate authorities for setting aside the penalty order passed by the assessing officer. Pen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in [2007] 9 VST 1 (SC); [2007] 7 SCC 269, wherein the honourable apex court held that mens rea is not essential ingredient for contravention of section 78(2) of the Act. Apart from above, the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Rajasthan Tax Board, both have set aside the penalty order on the ground that penalty order has been passed against the owner of the goods, whereas penalty orde....