SUDHIR NARAIN, J. - (1.) This revision is directed against the order dated March 30, 1988, passed by the Sales Tax Tribunal, Bench I, Meerut, arising out of the proceedings for penalty under section 15-A (1) (o) of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (in short "the Act" ). The facts in brief are as follows : The applicant is a registered firm under the provisions of the U. P. Sales Tax Act. The applicant purchased certain goods from Jodhpur for an amount of Rs. 12,630. 80 and the same were consigned to Bilari, district Moradabad under G. R. No. 002901, dated December 26, 1985. The goods were forwarded through a transport company. The truck carrying the said goods reached near Modi Nagar check-post. The driver is alleged to have attempted to speed up the truck with a view to prevent its checking but his attempt was foiled. Subsequently, the assessee furnished form XXXI bearing No. 0492575 which was duly received from Meerut. The conduct of the driver aroused suspicion which resulted into seizure of goods and subsequently, the same was released on security. A show cause notice was issued under section 15-A (1) (o) of the Act and in response to show cause notice the assessee submitted a reply. It was stated that the goods had been purchased from Jodhpur under bill No. 2421 dated December 26, 1985 for Rs. 12,629. 40. These goods were consigned to Bilari situate in district Moradabad, under G. R. No. 002901 dated December 26, 1985. Form XXXI No. NY-0492575 had also been enclosed with the G. R. It was stated that all necessary papers were produced at the check-post by the driver of the truck. The driver was not fully aware of the routes of the State and had no idea of the check-post located on the road. The papers were checked at the barrier of Rajasthan State and the same were passed. The driver had parked the bus by the side of road and in the meantime the Sales Tax Officer (Check-post) approached there. The driver showed all the papers to him and the same were found in order but in spite of verification by the check-post officer the goods were seized but released later on furnishing security of Rs. 5,200 on the ground that the driver had attempted to take away the goods without verification at the Mohan Nagar check-post. The Sales Tax Officer relied upon the report of the Sales Tax Officer (Check-post) that the driver was speeding away the truck without getting verified the goods and showing form XXXI. The Sales Tax Officer did not accept the explanation of the applicant and imposed penalty of Rs. 5,200. The order was affirmed in appeal by the Assistant Commissioner (Judicial), Meerut, and the Sales Tax Tribunal, Meerut Bench, Meerut. The Tribunal took the view that as the driver was speeding the truck, it indicated oblique motive and mala fide conduct and subsequent production of form XXXI would not come to rescue of the assessee. It observed that the question whether conduct of the assessee was dishonest or mala fide, was wholly irrelevant. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal but reduced the amount of penalty from Rs. 5,200 to Rs. 4,000. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the mere non-production of form XXXI at the check-post would not incur any penalty unless it is shown by the department that it was done with a view to evade assessment or payment of tax. The question of mens rea was a necessary ingredient for establishing the offence which is contemplated under section 15-A (1) (o) of the Act. Various decisions have been cited to show that mens rea is a necessary ingredient for imposing penalty under section 15-A of the Act. To appreciate this argument, it is necessary to refer to sections 15-A (1) (o), 28-A (1) (a), 28-A (2) (a) and 28-A (6) of the Act : " 15-A. Penalties in certain cases.- (1) If the assessing authority is satisfied that any dealer or other person - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (o) imports or transports, or attempts to import or transport or abets the import or transport of any goods in contravention of the provisions of section 28-A. " " 28-A. Import of goods into the State against declaration.- (1) Any person (hereinafter in this section referred to as the importer) who intends to bring, import or otherwise receive, into the State from any place without the State, any goods liable to tax under this Act in such quantity or measure or of such value, as exceeds, - (a) (i) twenty kilograms in the case of foodgrains, cereals, pulses, soyabean and all products thereof, and all raw materials including resin, rosin and oilseeds used for extracting oils of any kind; and (ii) rupees fifty, in the case of other goods; or (b) the quantity, measure or value notified by the State Government in that behalf, in connection with business, shall obtain the prescribed form of declaration on payment of the prescribed fee from the assessing authority having jurisdiction over the area where his principal place of business is situated or, in case there is no such place, where he ordinarily resides : Provided that where the importer intends to bring, import or otherwise receive such goods otherwise than in connection with business, he may, at his option, in the like manner obtain the prescribed form of certificate. (2) Where such goods are to be consigned by road, - (a) the importer shall furnish to the consignor the declaration in the prescribed form in duplicate duly filled in and signed by him and the driver or any other person-in-charge of any vehicle carrying any such goods shall carry with him the copies of such declaration duly verified by the consignor in the prescribed manner together with such other documents as may be prescribed, and shall before crossing any check-post or barrier established under section 28, deliver one copy of such declaration to the officer-in-charge of such check-post or barrier and the other copy of the declaration and the remaining documents along with the goods to be importer or his agent;" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " (6) Where the officer making the search or inspection under this section finds any person transporting or attempting or abetting to transport any goods to which this section applies without being covered by proper and genuine documents referred to in the preceding sub-sections and if for reasons to be recorded he is satisfied after giving such person an opportunity of being heard that such goods were being so transported in an attempt to evade assessment or payment of tax due or likely to be due under this Act, he may order detention of such goods. " If the provision of section 15-A (1) (o) is read along with the provision of section 28-A (1) (b) and 28 (2) (a) of the Act, the mere non-production of form XXXI at the time of the check-post or barrier, may invite penalty on the importer or transporter but if it is read along with section 28-A (6) of the Act, it contemplates that such transportation must be in an attempt to evade assessment or payment of tax due or likely to be due under the Act. The question came up for consideration in Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. v. State of U. P. [1983] 53 STC 54 (All.); 1983 UPTC 198, where the court while considering the scope of section 28-A of the Act observed. " Its present basis is the attempt to evade tax. The power to detain the goods and levy penalty in respect thereof cannot be exercised merely for the reason that the said goods were not accompanied by the requisite documents or that the documents accompanying them were false. This power can be exercised only if the goods detained are not accompanied by the requisite documents or that the documents accompanying them are false and if there is material before the detaining authority to indicate that the goods are being imported in an attempt to evade assessment or payment of tax due or likely to be due under the Act. " In Oriental Carbon Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1985 UPTC 613, it was held that the goods were imported without form XXXI but the explanation given by the assessee was found correct and the assessing officer came to the conclusion that since the goods imported were duly entered in the excise record and there was no element of mens rea, the penalty under section 15-A (1) (o) of the Act could not be imposed. The court held that the mere fact that the assessee did not produce form XXXI at check-post will not itself make him liable for imposition of penalty unless it is further established that the action of the assessee was an attempt to evade assessment or payment of tax due or likely to be due under the Act. In order that a case is covered within the mischief of sub-section (6) of section 28-A and the goods be detained by an officer making search, or inspection, it is necessary that the said officer must find out that the transportation was not covered by the proper and genuine documents and further, he is satisfied that those goods were transported in an attempt to evade assessment or payment of tax due or likely to be due under the Act. The above two conditions are sine qua non for the application of section 28-A (6 ). In absence of any of the two requirements, no action can validly be sustained under the said provision. On these conditions being satisfied, the Sales Tax Officer is not only entitled to detain the goods under section 28-A (6) but he is further entitled to proceed under section 15-A (1) (o) which provides for imposition of penalty against the person or persons importing goods in contravention of section 28-A of the Act. In Bharat Ply-wood Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax [1990] 79 STC 400 (All.); 1989 UPTC 1097 the court found that form XXXI was produced at the check-post which had become obsolete subsequent to its issuance as its validity was curtailed beyond a certain date but subsequently the assessee obtained fresh form XXXI of new series and submitted the same; it was held that on the date when form XXXI was issued it was perfectly valid and subsequently new series of form XXXI was produced, the conduct of the assessee was not dishonest as to evade payment of tax. In Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Bulaki Das Vinod Kumar 1987 UPTC 154, the court expressed the view that in case of levy of penalty under section 15-A (1) (o) of the Act, the question as to whether there has been either any concealment or evasion of tax is not material and it is not necessary to consider that mens rea was involved in committing default as contemplated under section 15-A (1) (o) of the Act. The contravention of the section is enough for imposition of penalty. This view was again expressed in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Godfray Philips India Ltd. 1989 UPTC 263 and Kapoor Sons Handicrafts v. Commissioner of Sales Tax 1991 UPTC 524. The case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Bulaki Das 1987 UPTC 154 was considered in Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Haring India Limited 1988 UPTC 1343, and distinguished on the ground that observations were made in the judgment in the context of the facts of that case. The question as to whether mens rea is a necessary ingredient for imposition of penalty for any default committed under section 15-A of the Act, has to be examined in the light of the objects of the provisions of the Act. The Supreme Court in Gujarat Travancore Agency v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1989] 177 ITR 455; 1989 UPTC 990, laid down that in a case where a statute imposes civil obligation mens rea may not be necessary ingredient but in a case it imposes a criminal liability, no sentence can be imposed under such provision unless an element of menu rea is established. In most cases of criminal liability the intention of Legislature is that the penalty should serve as a deterrent. The court made the following observations : " The creation of an offence by statute proceeds on the assumption that society suffers injury by the act or omission of the defaulter and that a deterrent sentence must be imposed to discourage the repetition of the offence. In the case of a proceeding under section 271 (1) (a), however, it seems that the intention of the Legislature is to emphasise the fact of loss of revenue and to provide a remedy for such loss, although no doubt an element of coercion is present in the penalty. In this connection, the terms in which the penalty falls to be measured are significant. Unless there is something in the language of the statute indicating the need to establish the element of mens rea, it is generally sufficient to prove that a default in complying with the statute has occurred. In our opinion, there is nothing in section 271 (1) (a) which requires that mens rea must be proved before penalty can be levied under that provision. " In R. S. Joshi, Sales Tax Officer v. Ajit Mills Limited [1977] 40 STC 497 (SC); AIR 1977 SC 2279, the validity of section 37 (1) (a) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959, was challenged which provided that where the dealer collects any sum by way of tax in excess of tax payable by him, or otherwise collects tax in contravention of section 46 of the Act, he shall be liable to pay in addition to any tax for which he may be liable, a penalty as provided under the said section. The court rejected the argument that mens rea was necessary ingredient for imposition of penalty by making following observations : " The notion that a penalty or a punishment cannot be cast in the form of an absolute or no-fault liability but must be preceded by mens rea must be rejected. The classical view that 'no mens rea, no crime' has long ago been eroded especially regarding economic crimes. Therefore, the contention that section 37 (1) fastens a heavy liability regardless of fault has no force in depriving the forfeiture of the character of penalty. " The provision of section 28-A of the Act imposes a duty on a transporter or importer of the goods to carry certain papers before the goods are imported or transported. It is necessary to examine whether mens rea is necessary ingredient for imposition of penalty under section 15-A of the Act. Section 28-A (1), (2), (3) provides for compliance of certain conditions before the goods are to be imported or transported. Sub-section (2) of section 28-A of the Act imposes a duty upon a transporter when the goods are to be consigned. It provides that importer shall furnish to the consignor the declaration in the prescribed form in duplicate duly filled in and signed by him and the driver or any other person-in-charge of any vehicle carrying any such goods shall carry with him the copies of such declaration duly verified by the consignor in the prescribed manner. Rule 83 of the U. P. Sales Tax Rules, 1948, provides, that owner, driver or any other person-in-charge of the vehicle shall carry with him certain documents specified in the said rule. These documents are required to be produced at the check-post. In case such documents are not obtained prior to the transportation of goods through a vehicle, it will amount to violation of section 28-A of the Act. Sub-section (6) of section 28-A of the Act, however, provides that where the officer making search or inspection finds any person transporting or attempting or abetting to transport any goods without being covered by proper and genuine documents and if for reasons to be recorded, he is satisfied that such goods were being so transported in an attempt to evade assessment or payment of tax due or likely to be due under the Act he may detain such gods. This provision contemplates that it has to established that transportation of goods was in an attempt to evade assessment or payment of tax due or likely to be due under the Act. This provision has to be construed harmoniously with other sub-sections of section 28-A. In case it has to be established by the department before imposition of penalty that act of transportation by an assessee was an attempt to evade assessment or payment of tax due or likely to be due under the Act, the requirement to obtain necessary papers and to follow other formalities and requirement under section 28-A of the Act can be avoided by an assessee. The Legislature when imposes a duty upon the person who intends to import or transports any goods covered by section 28-A of the Act, he has to comply with the requirement mentioned under the said provision. Where it is necessary to obtain form XXXI before importation of goods and such form XXXI was not obtained, he commits a default and his action will be treated in violation of provision of section 28-A of the Act. If the law requires that a person should obtain necessary papers before transportation of goods and fails to do it, he certainly commits an offence and penalty can be imposed upon him. On the other hand mere non-production of required documents at the check-post may cause injustice to the transporter or importer for some reason under certain circumstances under which a person may not be able to produce those documents at the check-post at the time of inspection. He may have lost the papers or there may be other justifiable reason where the documents could not be produced at the check-post. A passage from "legislation and Interpretation" by learned author Sri Jagdish Swarup may be extracted : " If possession of an article is made an offence then there must be proof that the accused was knowingly in possession of the article. A person cannot be said to be in possession of some article which he or she does not realise is, for example, in her handbag, in her room, or in some other place. " "that, I should have thought, is elementary", said Parker, C. J. in Lockyer v. Gibb [1966] 2 All ER 653; [1967] 2 QB 243, if something were slipped into our basket, and you had not the vaguest notion, it was there at all, you could not possibly be said to be in possession of it. " From the reading of the various provisions mentioned above, in my view, the position as emerges is as follows : (1) In case any transporter or importer has not obtained necessary documents or completed formalities before transporting the goods as required under section 28-A of the Act and rules framed thereunder the presumption would be that the transporter has done it with a view to evade assessment or payment of tax. The element of mens rea need not be established. (2) In case an explanation is offered that at the time of checking at the check-post necessary documents could not be produced and such explanation is accepted by an authority concerned, the penalty cannot be imposed under section 15-A read with section 28-A of the Act. The explanation, however, must be confined to the fact that the documents could not be produced at the time of inspection but if it is established that those documents were not originally obtained before transporting such goods, the person importing or transporting goods shall be liable for penalty. In the present case, the petitioner had submitted an explanation that he had take form XXXI before the goods were transported and it was enclosed with G. R. The goods in question were being transported from Jodhpur vide bill No. 2421 dated December 26, 1985. The driver of the truck was not fully aware of the Rules of the State and had no idea of the check-post on the road. When the driver was checked he had shown papers including form XXXI No. 0492075. The Check-post Officer verified the papers. The Tribunal recorded finding that the assessee furnished form XXXI No. 0492757 which was duly received from Meerut but as the said form was not shown at the check-post, the petitioner was liable to pay fine under section 15- (1) (o) read with section 28-A of the Act. He took the view that as there was violation of provisions of the Act, the element of mens rea was no relevant. The view of the Tribunal is erroneous in law. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that form XXXI was produced. Form XXXI was taken earlier before transportation of goods and if for some reason driver could not present form XXXI at the check-post it would not be taken that there was any violation of provision of section 28-A (2) of the Act. The explanation was given and that fully justified the claim of the applicant that there was no intention to evade the payment of tax. The assessee can always give explanation for non-production of form XXXI at the check-post and if such explanation clearly indicates that he had no oblique motive or any intention to evade payment of tax such a transporter cannot be made liable to pay penalty under section 15-A (1) (o) of the Act. In the result, the revision succeeds and is allowed. The orders passed by the respondents are set aside. There will be, however, no order as to costs. Petition allowed. .;