- (1.) The learned counsel for the parties, ad idem, submit that the issue involved in the present revision petition is squarely covered by a decision of this court in the case of Commercial Taxes Officer v. Devendra Yadav, 2012 53 VST 522. There is no quarrel in the factual position that the required documents, as per the provisions of section 78(2)(b) of the Act of 1994, were available and produced at the time of checking of vehicle/goods and required tax had already been paid by the assessee. The only reason assigned in the impugned order passed by the learned Tax Board for restoring the order of the assessing authority is that the seal of the check-post of the State of Rajasthan on the documents is not available. From a bare reading of section 78(2)(b) of the Act of 1994, it is amply clear that the requirement of seal of the check-post is not mandatory. Learned single judge while taking note of a Division Bench decision of this court has concluded in para. 6 as infra (page 523 in 53 VST): 6. The Division Bench of this court in State of Rajasthan v. Tajiander Pal,2003 6 TU 84, held that these provisions are not mandatory and are directory in nature. Division Bench of this court further held that if all the requisite documents are available at the time of checking of vehicle/goods, then intention to evade tax cannot be inferred. Both the appellate authorities have recorded a concurrent finding that there was no mens rea on the part of the assessee, as all the required documents were available and tax had already been paid by the assessee, therefore intention to evade tax cannot be inferred. In view of the settled position of law, the impugned order passed by the learned Tax Board cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly reversed and set aside. The revision petition is allowed.
(2.) No order as to costs.;