2016 (3) TMI 790

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....M/s.Shri Prakash Synthetics, dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue. 2. Mr.Dinesh Godara appearing for Mr.V.K.Mathur, learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the matter is covered by a decision of this Court in the case of C.T.O., Anti Evasion, Dungarpur Vs. M/s.Noble Enterprises [S.B.Civil (ST) Revision Petition No.457/2005 decided on 19.05.2015], relying upon the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of ACTO Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (S.T.R. No.92/1999 alongwith connected revision petitions decided on 26.02.2015) reported in MANU/RH/0327/2015. 3. Mr.Lalit Pareek appearing for Mr.Dinesh Mehta, learned counsel for the Assessee, however, submits that the main ground for imposition of penalty under Section 76(....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....suspicion or doubt on the documents to be false or forged, per se, does not attract levy of penalty under sub-section (5) of Section 78 of the RST Act, 1994. In such case, an opportunity is to be given under Rule 55 (1) of the RST Rules, 1995, to a person, to produce the required documents and/or declaration forms completed in all respects, when the goods enters or leaves the nearest check-post of the State. It is only when a person despite giving such an opportunity, is not able to produce the document and/or declaration forms completed in all respects, when the goods enters or leaves the nearest check-post of the State, or the documents are found to be false or forged, after enquiry, that a penalty may be imposed, which is a civil liabili....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... pursuance to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan and Another v. M/s D.P. Metals (supra), authorises the authority empowered, to make an enquiry of violation of Section 78 (2), and not to adjudicate a 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." 36. With the decision on the aforesaid referred questions, let the S.B. Sales Tax Revision No.92/1999, and other connected Sales Tax Revisi....