J.K. Ranka, J. - (1.) Instant sales tax revision petition is directed against order of the Tax Board dated January 17, 2002 and relates to penalty which was imposed upon the assessee under Sec. 78(5) of the Act. It may be observed that a Larger Bench was constituted by the honourable 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 Parashwanath Granite India Ltd. v/s. 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/s. 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/s. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 78 on proven violation of sub -section (2) of Sec. 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 honourable Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v/s. D.P. Metals : [2001] 124 STC 611 (SC), 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 Sec. 78 on proved violation of sub -section (2) of Sec. 78 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 -
(2.) The Larger Bench of this court vide order dated February 26, 2015 passed in Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 92 of 1999 (Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. : [2015] 82 VST 200 (Raj)[FB]) and other connected revision petitions has answered the questions as follows (pages 223 and 224 in 82 VST): "(i) The requirement of mens rea is not relevant for the purpose of determining the liability for penalty, in terms of Sec. 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 Sec. 78, on proving violation of sub -section (2) of Sec. 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/s. D.P. Metals : [2001] 124 STC 611 (SC), authorises the authority empowered, to make an enquiry of violation of Sec. 78(2), and not to adjudicate as to whether the mens rea was present in violation of sub -section (2) of Sec. 78, for imposing penalty under sub -section (5) of Sec. 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 Sec. 78, on proving violation of sub -section (2) of Sec. 78 of the RST Act, 1994."
(3.) After answering the questions in S.B. Sales Tax Revision No. 92 of 1999 in Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. : [2015] 82 VST 200 (Raj)[FB] and other connected sales tax revisions, were ordered to be sent back and listed before the Bench having jurisdiction to decide the matters, in accordance with the opinion given and the answers provided by the Larger Bench on such opinion and accordingly the instant revision petition is being decided.;