JUDGMENT 1. - Since a common question is involved in all the four petitions, therefore are decided by a single order. 2. The above-mentioned four petitions have been filed under Section 15 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 (tor brevity, 'the Act, 1954') against the orders dated March 31, 1989 and January 19, 1991 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer. These petitions relate to the assessment years, 1986-87 and 1984-85. Two of the above-mentioned revision petitions have been filed by the revenue and the remaining two have been filed by the assessee. The assessee does the business of manufacturing and selling bricks. The assessee entered into a contract with J.K. Cement Works, Nimbahera and other Cement Factories for supply of bricks. The transport charges were shown separately and were not included in the price of the material sold. The Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti-Evasion I, Ajmer imposed tax and penalty on the assessee in respect of the years, 1986-87 and 1984-85. The assessee filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Sales Tax, Ajmer, who reduced the penalty to a particular amount vide order dated March 19, 1987 (Anx. 2). Thereafter, the assessee preferred appeals in the Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer. The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals and set aside the order of penalty under Section 16(1) of the Act, 1954, but maintained the order of imposition of sales tax, which included freight amount in the sales price. 3. It is submitted by Mr. G.S. Bapna, learned counsel for the revenue, that the assessee sold bricks F.O.R., but under-priced the sale. The Assessing Authority, vide order dated February 27,1987 (Anx. 1), after examining the records of the assessee, imposed tax on the sale of bricks, on the actual sale price, which included freight cost and rightly imposed penalty under Section 16(1)(e) and Section 7AA of the Act, 1954 and demand of interest was also raised. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the assessee deliberately filed incorrect returns, stating that the freight was not part of the sale price and thus, reduced the tax liability. It is also submitted that since it was done intentionally the mens rea is present and the same was done with intention to evade the payment of tax. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the assessee deliberately filed incorrect returns, stating that the freight was not part of the sale price and thus, reduced the tax liability. It is also submitted that since it was done intentionally the mens rea is present and the same was done with intention to evade the payment of tax. The learned Tribunal has given a finding that since the goods were to be delivered at FOR destination the freight charges were to be included in the sale price and the assessee not only bifurcated the same deliberately, but reduced the tax liability also. It is, therefore, submitted that the Assessing Authority had rightly imposed penalty on the assessee. 4. It is submitted by Mr. G.P. Kaushik, learned counsel for the assessee, that the freight charges cannot be included in the sale price, in the matter under consideration. It is further submitted that documents No. 20 and 40 have been placed on record to show that FOR is 'Badanwara', where the industry is situated. The goods were sent to Nimbahera and the trucks were arranged by the assessee only with a view to assist the purchasers. Therefore, the transport charges could not be included in the sale price. It is also submitted that, in any case, the assessee has clearly mentioned in his returns, therefore, cannot be accused of any mens rea of deliberately suppressing any material facts. Therefore, the question of any peanalty does not arise. 5. I have heard both the parties and gone through the documents on record. It may be pointed out that in Anx. 2, order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), a finding has been given that from the enquiry report placed on the seized documents for the year, 1987-88, which is available on the file, it is clearly mentioned that bricks were sent to M/s. J.K. Cement Works, Nimbahera and FOR was also Nimbahera. Thus, there is a finding that the material was sent for Nimbahera and not 'Bandanwara', as pointed out by the learned counsel for the assessee. The learned counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court given in Newar Khaniz Udyog v. CTO (1991) 8 STA 74 . Thus, there is a finding that the material was sent for Nimbahera and not 'Bandanwara', as pointed out by the learned counsel for the assessee. The learned counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court given in Newar Khaniz Udyog v. CTO (1991) 8 STA 74 . It is pointed out by the learned counsel that in this judgment, it was held by this Court that it is very difficult to hold that the amount of freight formed part of the sale price within the meaning of Section 2(p) of the Act, 1954 and Section 2(h) of the Central Act. Therefore, the order of the learned Tribunal holding that freight formed part of sale price within the meaning of Section 2(p) was set aside. I have carefully gone through this judgment. However, the matter considered in the above mentioned judgment was not regarding the goods sold on FOR basis. In Hindustan Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan (1979) 43 STC 13 , the Apex Court considered the same question under the provisions of Section 2(p) of the Act, 1954. It was observed by the Apex Court that "the dealer may, instead of transporting the goods from his factory or his place of business and selling them there, enter into a contract of sale f.o.r. destination railway station. Where such a contract is made, the seller undertakes an obligation to put the goods on rail and arrange to have them carried to the destination railway station at his expense. The delivery of the goods to the purchaser in such a case is complete at the destination railway station and till then the risk continues to remain with the dealer. The freight is payable by the dealer since he has to arrange for the goods to be carried by rail to the destination railway station at his expense and there is no obligation on the purchaser to pay the freight." It was, therefore, held that since it is the obligation of the dealer to deliver goods free of rail, destination railway station, the dealer is liable to pay freight. In the matter, under consideration also, the goods were sent for. Nimbahera and, therefore, the freight charges had to be included in the sale price. In the matter, under consideration also, the goods were sent for. Nimbahera and, therefore, the freight charges had to be included in the sale price. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the assessee that the transport charges should not have been included in the sale price, has no force. 6. Section 16 of the Act, 1956 (sic 1954) provides regarding penalties and prosecution etc. Sub-clause (e) of this Section provided that "if any person has concealed any particulars from any return furnished by him or has deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars therein", shall be liable to penalty/ prosecution etc. Admittedly, the assessee has not concealed any particulars in the returns furnished by him, nor he could be said to have given inaccurate particulars. It has been clearly mentioned in the returns that the amount which charged was on account of transportation of the material sold. The only fact remains is that this amount was not included in the sale price of the goods sold. The learned Tribunal in para 13 of its order (Anx. 3) has considered this matter in details and has come to the conclusion that in fact, this is matter of bona fide interpretation of subclause (e) of Section 16 of the Act, 1954. Thereafter, it also came to the conclusion that there was no mens rea present and no deliberate attempt was made to reduce the tax liability. While coming to this finding, the learned Tribunal has relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in The Cement Marketing Corporation of India v. Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Indore,45 STC 197 , and a judgment of this Court in M/s. Vijay Hosiery Mills v. State of Rajasthan, 45 STC 345 . From the facts and circumstances discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that the question of presence of mens rea does not arise, while the returns were filed by the assessee. I, therefore, do not find any force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the revenue. 7. In the result, all the revision petitions are dismissed and the impugned orders of the learned Tribunal are upheld. No order as to costs.Revision dismissed. *******