2015 (5) TMI 1050

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ch was constituted by the 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 decided on June 2, 2004) [2006] 144 STC  271 (Raj); [2005] (1) RLR 291, and in Maharana Talkies v. State of Rajasthan (D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 858 of 1994, decided on November 29, 2004), reported in [2004] 19 Sales Tax Today 239, 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 &....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., 1994. (ii) 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.  (iii) The amendment to rule 55 of the RST Rules, 1995, in pursuance to 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 me....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Larger Bench of this court mens rea was not required to be  proved as a necessary ingredient for imposition of penalty and the judgment of the Tax Board on merits deserves to be reversed. She also relied on  the judgment of honourable apex court in the case of Guljag Industries v.  Commercial Taxes Officer reported in [2007] 9 VST 1 (SC); [2007] 293 ITR  584 (SC); [2007] 18 Tax Up-date 321. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent-assessee contends  that though in the light of the judgment of the honourable apex court and  this court in Larger Bench, mens rea is not essential but the admitted facts  are that the vehicle was intercepted on July 13, 1995 on which particular  day, ther....