TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (5) TMI 1052
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de the following questions framed after noticing a conflict of opinions in the Division 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 re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rsuance to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan And Another 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 the case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and other connected Sales ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e contended that the telephone cables purchased were for own use to be used in the factory premises for diverse purposes and it was duly recorded in the registration certificate, which was granted by the Revenue Department. He contended that there was no necessity of carrying declaration form ST-18AA when the same has been purchased for its own use and contended that Rule 53(1)(b) is clear in this regard and accordingly contended that there is a concurrent finding by both the appellate authorities that telephone cables were duly recorded in the registration certificate, were purchased for own use and accordingly the penalty was rightly deleted. 8. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties. As held by the Hon'b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 10,000/- or more for use, consumption, or disposal otherwise than by way of sale; shall furnish or cause to be furnished a declaration in form ST-18A. The counter foil of the declaration shall be retained by such dealer and its portions marked "Original" and "Duplicate" shall be carried with the goods in movement:- (b)Any dealer or person other than a Registered dealer:- (i)who imports any taxable goods as may be notified by the State Government or, (ii)who receives any goods as may be notified by the State Government, consigned to him from outside the State; or (iii)who intends to bring, import or otherwise receives any goods from outside the State, as may be notified by the State Government, of the value of Rs. 10,000/- or more....