TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (5) TMI 1053
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 liability for penalty in terms of section 78, sub-section (5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 ? (i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 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-section (5) of section 78, on proving violation of sub-section (2) of section 78 of the RST Act, 1994." After answering the questions in Indian Oil Corpor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is a case where cuttings and overwriting not only in material columns were found but also in all the columns, and it was not apparent as to who has initiated the cuttings and overwritings. He further contended that even if there were initials but same will not make material difference as several discrepancies were noticed, he further contended that in the original form while earlier 8472 kg. was mentioned which was corrected to 9196 kg. He further contended that there was some price of material earlier which was corrected to Rs. 6,90,737.50 and even the bill number was changed from B5121 to B5175. He further contended that in the light of the judgment rendered by the honourable apex court in the case of Guljag Industries v. Commercial Taxes....