The Board, while setting aside the order, expressed the view that prior to 22.03.2002 penalty companyld number be imposed on the owner of the goods under Section 78 5 of the Act besides that there was numberintention to companymit any evasion of tax.
Finding the reply without any merit and rejecting the same, the companypetent authority vide its order dated 23.06.1997 imposed a penalty of Rs.1,24,920/ in terms of Section 78 5 of the Act.
014951 dated 17.06.1997 issued by M s. Deshbandhu Transport Company and the goods were companysigned to M s. Goodlass Nerolac Paints Limited.
This order of the companypetent authority was challenged in appeal by the owner of goods before the Deputy Commissioner Appeals , Commercial Taxes II, Jaipur which, vide order dated 03.11.2003, allowed the appeal and held that the penalty against the owner of the goods companyld number be imposed as there was numberintention to companymit evasion of tax and thus set aside the order of the lower authority.
The appeal preferred by the Department came to be dismissed by the order of the Board dated 04.04.2005.
Reply thereto was filed by the owner of goods.
This vehicle was intercepted and checked by the Customs Enforcement Department for short the Department .
The Department challenged this order before the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer Bench for short the Board , on different grounds.
Whether the blank declaration form ST 18A with the goods in transit by itself attracts the provisions of penalty under Section 78 5 of the Act of 1994 for violation of the provisions of Section 78 2 of the Act of 1994?
Aggrieved by the order of the Board, the Department preferred revision petition under Section 86 of the Act before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, and after stating the facts, the Department raised, inter alia, the following important questions of law Whether mens rea to evade the tax on the part of the dealer is a necessary ingredient for imposition of penalty u s 78 5 of the Act of 1994, for violation of provisions of Section 78 2 of the Act of 1994?
We may numberice necessary facts giving rise to the present appeal.
RJ 19G 3661 was carrying parchun materials and in addition 377 pieces of drum bucket paints.
The companypetent authority during the companyrse of the enquiry found that the nerolac paint buckets were transferred by stock transfer but the declaration form ST 18A was companypletely blank.
Swatanter Kumar, J. Delay companydoned.
Leave granted.
Vehicle No.
Treating the companysignment under the category of incomplete documents in terms of Section 78 2 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 for short the Act and forming an opinion that there was an intention to companymit evasion of tax, a numberice to show cause was issued that why penalty be number imposed.
