2015 (8) TMI 1240

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ivision Bench judgments of this Court in M/s. Parasnath Granite India Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Another (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4250/1998), 2005(1) RLR 291, decided on 02.06.2004, and in M/s Maharana Talkies Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others(D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.858/1994), reported in (2004) 19 Sales Tax Today 239, decided on 29.11.2004, as well as M/s. Lalji Mulji Transport Company Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2002(3) RLR 255, as follows:- "(i) Whether requirement of mens rea is relevant for the purpose of determining the liability for penalty in terms of Section 78 sub-section(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994" (ii) Whether the mens rea is required to be proved as a necessary ingredient for imposition of penalty under....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....other Vs. M/s. D.P. Metals(supra), authorises the authority empowered, to make an enquiry of violation of Section 78(2), and not to adjudicate as to whether the mens rea was present in violation of sub-section (2) of Section 78, for imposing penalty under sub-section (5) of Section 78 of the RST Act, 1994. (iv) The mens rea is not required to be proved as necessary ingredient for imposition of penalty under sub-section (5) of Section 78, on proving violation of sub-section(2) of Section 78 of the RST Act, 1994. 4. After answering the questions in S.B. Sales Tax Revision No.92/1999 in Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and other connected Sales Tax Revisions, were ordered to be sent back and listed be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o make alternative arrangements. The matter was lastly listed on 26/05/2015 and on which date Ms. Tanvi Sahai, appearing on behalf of Mr. RB Mathur, sought short time for making alternative arrangements but today she pleads no instructions. Even before the larger Bench Mr. R.B. Mathur appeared and argued the matter and did not point this fact. Since the matter pertains to the year 2003 and penalty imposed in the year 1996 and now in the light of the judgment rendered by the Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (supra), the matter is disposed of accordingly after perusing the material available on record. 8. In the light of the judgment of the Larger Bench in the ca....