- (1.) Instant sales tax revision petition is directed against order of the Tax Board dt.29/07/2004 and relates to penalty which was imposed upon the assessee under Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994..
(2.) It may be observed that a Larger Bench was constituted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice to resolve and decide 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, 2005 1 RLR 291(D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4250/1998), decided on 02.06.2004, and in M/s Maharana Talkies Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others,2004 19 STT 239(D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.858/1994), 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 rea is required to be proved as a necessary ingredient for imposition of penalty under sub-section(5) of Section 78 on proven violation of sub-section (2) of Section 78 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994? (iii) Whether in view of the amendment to Rule 55 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1995 pursuant to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and Another Vs. M/s. D.P. Metals, on sufficient cause being shown whether any authority empowered would be justified in not imposing the penalty in the absence of mens rea being proved? (iv) Whether the mens rea is required to be proved as a necessary ingredient for imposing of penalty under sub-section (5) of Section 78 on proved violation of sub-section (2) of Section 78 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994?
(3.) The Larger Bench of this Court vide order dt.26/02/2015 passed in Sales Tax Revision Petition No.92/1999 (Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer Vs. M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.) and other connected revision petitions has answered the questions as follows:- (i) The requirement of mens rea is not relevant for the purpose of determining the liability for penalty, in terms of Section 78(5) of the RST Act, 1994. (ii) 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. (iii) The amendment to Rule 55 of the RST Rules, 1995, in pursuance to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan And Another Vs. M/s. D.P. Metals, 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.;