TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 1009
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a Larger Bench was constituted by honourable the Chief Justice to resolve and decide the following questions framed after noticing a conflict of opinions in the Division Bench judgments of this court in Parashwanath Granite India Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan (D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4250 of 1998) [2006] 144 STC 271 (Raj); [2005] (1) RLR 291, decided on June 2, 2004, and in Maharana Talkies v. State of Rajasthan (D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 858 of 1994), reported in [2004] 19 Sales Tax Today 239, decided on November 29, 2004, as well as Lalji Mulji Transport Company v. State of Rajasthan [2002] 127 STC 365 (Raj); [2002] 3 RLR 255, as follows: "(i) Whether requirement of mens rea is relevant for the purpose of determining the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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. (iii) The amendment to rule 55 of the RST Rules, 1995, in pursuance of the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. D. P. Metals [2001] 124 STC 611 (SC), 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... provisions of sales tax laws, however, they produced the declaration form ST-18C bearing No. 1886/01 duly filled, signed and sealed before the assessing officer. The assessing officer was not satisfied with the explanation so offered, and contended that declaration form ought to have been with the vehicle and to produce the same on the spot accordingly levied penalty under section 78(5) of the RST Act. The matter was challenged in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed the same in the light of the judgment rendered in the case of State of Rajasthan v. D. P. Metals [2001] 124 STC 611 (SC); [2002] 1 SCC 279. The Revenue carried the matter before the Tax Board, who upheld the order of the DC (A) and deleted the penalt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., and which was produced immediately on demand, and even on the same day of intercepting the vehicle. Admittedly, it is not a case that the declaration form was obtained subsequent to the dispatch of the goods or after being intercepted by the authorized officer of the Revenue, and admittedly the vehicle was checked on June 23, 1999 on an information giving by the vehicle incharge to the assessee, he appeared before the authorized officer himself on the same day, i.e., June 23, 1999 and produced declaration form ST-18C, therefore, once it is a finding of fact given by the assessing officer that the declaration form was produced on the same day on June 23, 1999 when the vehicle was intercepted, in my view, in the light of the judgment render....