Honble LAKSHMANAN, CJ.¡This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 25.8.1998 passed by the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal, Jodhpur, whereby the original application preferred by the respondent Dealer u/S. 8 of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995 has been allowed and notice dated 29.7.97 issued to the respondent by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Flying Squad -II, Jodhpur in exercise of powers conferred under Sec. 78 of the Act has been quashed and set aside. (2). The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows: (3). In the course of business the respondent placed an order to M/s Kamani Oil Industries, Kochi to supply a truck-load of coconut oil and send a demand draft for Rs. 4, 70, 000/-bearing D.D. No. 554376 issued in favour of M/s Kamani Oil Industries. The said Industries sent 560 Tins of coconut oil vide bill dated 24.7.97 to the respondent firm. The selling dealer at Tamil Nadu sent the said 560 Tins of coconut oil vide bill No. 1043 dated 24.7.97 in Truck No. KA-01/A-7898. The selling dealer M/s. S.Thangavel of Tamil Nadu sent the said goods along with all the necessary documents, including the bill No. 3/46 dated 24.7.97 bilty No. 1043 and a declaration as prescribed by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Act. A further declaration form ST 18A as prescribed by the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act 1994 and the Rules framed thereunder was also sent. The said goods were intercepted at Banar Road Octroi Naka and the driver of the truck one Ponnuswamy was asked to produce the documents. He produced all the documents including the bills, declaration forms etc. and the declaration form ST 18A before the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Flying Squad-II. On a perusal of the aforesaid documents, the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer found that ST Form 18-A is not fully filled up and details required to be given in Column No. 3 to 9 were not filled in by the selling dealer Thangavel of Tamil Nadu. (4). A show cause notice was issued to the Respondent Company to show cause why the penalty u/S. 78 (5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 may not be imposed upon the respondent. (4). A show cause notice was issued to the Respondent Company to show cause why the penalty u/S. 78 (5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 may not be imposed upon the respondent. According to the respondent, he met the second petitioner herein and apprised the facts that since the said Form 18A is printed in Hindi and as such, the selling dealer at Tamil Nadu who did not know Hindi could not fill up the form completely. But, however, it was pointed out that the name of the consignor and the consignee had been shown in the said Form and the goods in question were accompanied with all the relevant documents and as such, there is no question of tax evasion or mens rea on the part of the respondent. The second petitioner did not pay Need to the submissions made by the respondent and however, stated that furnishing of ST 18A is a mandatory requirement and since ST 18A is not completely filled up it is as good as no declaration Form had been furnished and as such levying a penalty under Sec. 78 (5) of the Act is attracted. The 2nd petitioner was bent upon to levy the penalty being 30% of the value of the goods under Sec. 78(5) of he Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and since the goods in question are perishable in nature the respondent approached the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal at Jodhpur by filing the original Application No. 175/97 questioning the action of the 2nd petitioner herein and to quash the show cause notice dated 29.7.1997. Along with the original application, the respondent filed Annexures No. 1 to 9. (5). The petitioners herein filed reply to the original application before the Tribunal. A preliminary objection stating that the power vested in the Tribunal under Sec. 8 of the Act of 1995 is not unlimited and unqualified and the same is restricted with certain limitations contained in the said section itself. It was submitted that the respondent was under an obligation to file an appropriate reply to the show cause notice and produce the relevant records/documents in his defence. Instead, the respondent has directly approached the Tribunal when there is no compelling circumstances existing which could justify the entertainment of the original Application against the show cause notice. (6). It was submitted that the respondent was under an obligation to file an appropriate reply to the show cause notice and produce the relevant records/documents in his defence. Instead, the respondent has directly approached the Tribunal when there is no compelling circumstances existing which could justify the entertainment of the original Application against the show cause notice. (6). It is further submitted that in view of the preliminary objection, the respondent/applicant before the Tribunal should be relegated to approach the competent authority under the Act for redressal of his grievance, if any, and the respondent cannot be allowed to bypass the remedy available to him under the Statute itself inasmuch as, if the respondent feels aggrieved by the order which may be passed by the authority, it can prefer an appeal under Sec. 84 of the Act of 1994 before the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur. (7). On merits, it was submitted that the Form ST 18A which has been produced by the respondent at the time of checking was not filled in accordance with law and the mere mentioning of the RST and CST Numbers of the purchasing dealer and Registration Number of selling dealer is not sufficient. It was further contended that the goods should accompany with the duly filled in Form ST-18A and since the goods were not accompanied with the documents it attracts the penalty u/S. 78 of the Act. (8). The respondent herein filed a rejoinder stating that his case squarely fall in category (ii) & (iii) of Sec. 8 as the case in hand involves substantial questions of law relating to the interpretation of Sec. 78, Rule 53, and Forms ST 18A, and his original Application before the Tribunal, without exhausting the alternative remedy, is maintainable and justifiable in law. (9). The Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal, by order dated 25.8.98, after careful analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents filed, came to the conclusion that there was no attempt on the part of the respondent herein to evade the valuation of a declaration in Form ST 18A along with the goods in transit, and there is no intention to evade tax. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the proceedings u/S. 78 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act for the imposition of the penalty, were not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case and, accordingly, quashed the impugned notice dated 29.7.97. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the proceedings u/S. 78 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act for the imposition of the penalty, were not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case and, accordingly, quashed the impugned notice dated 29.7.97. (9). The State Government was also advised to consider introduction of bilingual forms for such purposes. (10). In paragraph 8 and 9, the Tribunal has observed as follows:- ``The fact that mere notices have been impugned makes no difference. The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Tribunal can be invoked even in the case of notices and there is nothing to debar this Tribunal from entertaining such challenges. Even at the time this Tribunal admitted this application for hearing it was apparent that alternative remedies had not been availed of. It was equally apparent that substantial questions relating to the circumstances in which a partially completed declaration in form ST 18A could pass muster. As such the preliminary objection has no force and this application is perfectly maintainable. 9. Undoubtedly, it is a mandatory requirement u/S. 78, RST Act read with Rule 53 that goods in Transit be accompanied by a declaration in form ST 18A duly filled in. Failure to do so can, therefore, give rise to the liability to be penalised. Penalty cannot, however, be automatic or be invariably imposed. The totality of attendant circumstances, including mens rea, which prevented and/or explained the mandatory requirement from being met would be relevant. The prescribed declaration in form ST 18A is available only in Hindi in the Devanagri script. Obviously, in the case of a consignee from a non-Hindi speaking State, unfamiliar with Hindi and its script the fulfilling of this mandatory requirement can be problematical, as indeed appears to be so in the case in hand. All the other requisite documents were in order. There was no attempt to evade the furnishing of a declaration in form ST 18A along with the goods in transit. There were good reasons for failing to fill the form completely. There can be said to be no intention to evade tax-avoidance or evasion of tax being a sine qua non of Sec. 78, RST Act. Therefore, proceedings u/S. 78, RST Act for the imposition of penalty were not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. (12). There were good reasons for failing to fill the form completely. There can be said to be no intention to evade tax-avoidance or evasion of tax being a sine qua non of Sec. 78, RST Act. Therefore, proceedings u/S. 78, RST Act for the imposition of penalty were not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. (12). Being aggrieved, the State of Rajasthan has preferred the above writ petition,to quash the order passed by the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal. Along with the writ petition, Annexures 1 to 6 were filed. (13). We have heard Mr. Sangeet Lodha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Dinesh Mehta learned counsel for the respondent. (14). Mr. Sangeet Lodha submitted as follows: (1) That the form produced by the driver of the vehicle, before the authority, was blank and that the blank form is to be treated as if no declaration form has been produced. (2) That since goods were being carried without requisite form, in conformity with the provisions of Sec. 78 of the Act and the Rules, the competent authority is well within his jurisdiction to proceed to issue notice to the respondent-dealer in exercise of the powers conferred u/S. 78(5) of the Act. (3) The original application preferred by the dealer is premature, inview of the alternative remedy available under the Statute itself. The dealer cannot invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of the Tribunal u/S. 8 of the Act. (4) The Tribunal having held that it is a mandatory requirement of Sec. 78, read with Rule 53, that the goods in transit should be accompanied by a declaration in Form ST 18A duly filled in, has however, erred in accepting the case of the respondent herein and quashed the penalty proceedings. (5) The Tribunal has erred in holding that the intention or evasion of tax is sine qua non of Sec. 78 of the Act and that a perusal of Sec. 78 of the Act would show that the said section nowhere provides that the penalty can only be imposed if the intention to evade tax is established. (15). Form ST-18A was issued to the respondent dealer on 17.7.97 and, accordingly it is valid upto 16.7.99. Had there been no checking, the respondent could have reused the Forms during the transportation of the goods for subsequent consignment. (15). Form ST-18A was issued to the respondent dealer on 17.7.97 and, accordingly it is valid upto 16.7.99. Had there been no checking, the respondent could have reused the Forms during the transportation of the goods for subsequent consignment. Therefore, at the stage of initiation of the proceedings there was absolutely no material on record for the Tribunal to arrive at the finding that the Dealer had no intention to evade the tax. (16). The learned counsel for the respondent has, however, invited our attention to the Annex. filed before the Tribunal and also in this Court. The learned counsel for the respondent has reiterated the ground urged by him in the original application and also in the rejoinder and submitted that the order of the Tribunal is perfectly in order and in the absence of any attempt to evade furnishing of a declaration form in ST 18A and in the absence of any intention to evade tax which is sine qua non of Sec. 78 of the Act and in the absence of mens rea the proceedings u/S. 78 for the imposition of penalty were not called for or warranted. (17). We have perused the entire pleadings, and the Annex. filled and the order passed by the Taxation Tribunal. The following questions arise for determination in this writ petition:- (a) Whether the penalty proceedings initiated by the 2nd petitioner against the respondent for carrying incomplete declaration form No. ST 18A, prescribed under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules 1995, along with the goods in transit, is proper and justifiable in the facts and circumstances of the case? (b) Whether when all the relevant documents like bill, bilty, declaration etc. as prescribed by the Tamil Nadu authorities and the declaration form ST 18A, as prescribed by the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 were available with the transporter containing declaration by the importer, whether merely carrying of incomplete declaration form ST 18A, along with the goods in transit, can be treated as such breach of the provisions of Sec. 78 of the Act, for which penalty was imposable? (c) Whether the provisions for carrying declaration of the importer in the Form No. ST 18A by the transporter or carrier is to be treated to be a mandatory requirement? (18). In the present case, the penalty has solely been imposed because Form ST 18A, which accompanied the goods in transit, was incomplete. (c) Whether the provisions for carrying declaration of the importer in the Form No. ST 18A by the transporter or carrier is to be treated to be a mandatory requirement? (18). In the present case, the penalty has solely been imposed because Form ST 18A, which accompanied the goods in transit, was incomplete. However, no deficiency or inaccuracy of the informations furnished in other documents accompanying the goods, have been found. (19). As already noticed, a perusal of the document Form ST 18A would show that it was not fully filled up and the details required to be given in Column No. 3 to 9 were not filled in by the selling dealer at Tamil Nadu. It is not in dispute that the orders were placed by the respondent herein with M/s. Kamani Oil Industry, Kochi, to supply the goods in question and a demand draft of Rs. 4, 70, 404/-was also issued infavour of the said industries. The goods were sold to the respondent herein through the selling dealer at Tamil Nadu who sent the goods vide bilty No. 1043 dated 24.7.97 in Truck No. KA-01/A/7898. The selling dealer had sent the goods, along with all the necessary documents including the bill, bilty and the declaration, as prescribed by the Sales Tax Authorities of Tamil Nadu and a further declaration Form ST 18A as prescribed by the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. The goods were loaded in the above truck and when the vehicle was intercepted the 2nd petitioner was apprised of the facts that since the said Form is printed in Hindi and as such the form could not be filled up completely. But however, the name of the consignee and the consignor had been shown in the said Form and that the goods in question were accompanied by all the other requisite documents, and as such there is no question of tax evasion and mens rea on the part of the respondent. When the goods were duly accompanied by the relevant documents prescribed by the law, including declaration form completely filled-in, as required by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Act, there is no question of issuing the notice u/S. 78(2) of the RST Act. Such proceedings initiated by the petitioners are clearly without jurisdiction and illegal. When the goods were duly accompanied by the relevant documents prescribed by the law, including declaration form completely filled-in, as required by the Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Act, there is no question of issuing the notice u/S. 78(2) of the RST Act. Such proceedings initiated by the petitioners are clearly without jurisdiction and illegal. It is also a matter of record that the driver of the truck had already paid octroi leviable on the goods amounting to Rs. 2, 868/-which shows the conduct of the respondent. A perusal of the declaration form clearly shows that details in respect of paragraph 3 to 9 of the said declaration form were not filled up by the selling dealer but all these details were very much present in the bills and the bilties etc. which could be ascertained from those bills. (20). A perusal of the declaration form issued as per the provisions of Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Act, clearly shows that it is a duly filled up form and all the details including the bill number, quantity and the amount of the goods being sent were mentioned. As such, there cannot be any suspicion regarding the said transaction and as such there is no mens rea on the part of the respondent firm to evade any tax. It is also pertinent to note that the declaration form ST 18A was issued to the respondent firm on 17.7.97 and the truck takes atleast 5 days time to reach Jodhpur from Tamil Nadu. As such the declaration form ST 8590 issued on 17.7.97 cannot be reused by 29.7.97 as contended by Mr. Sangeet Lodha. That contention, in our opinion, has no merit. (21). In the present case, as already noticed, it is not in dispute that the goods have been transported from Tamil Nadu and the goods were accompanied with all the documents. Even declaration in Form No. ST 18A was also accompanied with the goods which is a declaration to be furnished by the purchaser or the consignee, at whose request the goods have been moved from outside the State to inside the State of Rajasthan. The consignee is required to fill the details of the imported goods in Form No. ST 18A which is being given by the consignee in advance to the consignor. The consignee is required to fill the details of the imported goods in Form No. ST 18A which is being given by the consignee in advance to the consignor. The declaration sought to be provided in Form No. ST 18A reads as under:- ``Declared and certified that the goods, particulars of which are given below, have been imported by me/us or have been consigned to me/us from outside the State for purposes mentioned in rule 52, and hold myself/ourselves liable for payment of tax as per law to the Government on the sale thereof. (22). It is not at all in dispute that Form No. ST 18A containing this declaration had been sent by the consignee importer and was accompanying the goods. The name of the consignor and the consignee are also duly mentioned. RC number of the consignee under the RST Act and the CST Act has also been mentioned. (23). Similar question arose for consideration before this Court which was decided by Hon. Mr. Rajesh Balia, J. in Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Flying Squad, Raniwada Distt. Jalore vs. Voltas Limited (1). The question posed for consideration in that case was whether levying penalty against the respondent therein for carrying incomplete declaration form ST 18A prescribed under the RST Act and the Rules, along with the goods in transit was justified? (24). Dismissing the revision, the learned Judge has held as under:- ``Held, dismissing the revision, that it is not in dispute that the goods have been transported by the consignor from Hyderabad to Jaipur to its own branch office and the goods were accompanied also with declaration in form No. ST 18A, which is a declaration to be furnished by the importer or the consignee at whose request the goods have moved from outside the State to inside the State. This declaration form S.T. 18A is being given by the consignee in advance to the consignor. The consignee is required to fill the details of the imported goods in form No. ST 18A. A perusal of Rule 53 of the Rules, 1995 prescribed goes to show that the consignee would be able to fill most of the particulars in the declaration form. The consignee is required to fill the details of the imported goods in form No. ST 18A. A perusal of Rule 53 of the Rules, 1995 prescribed goes to show that the consignee would be able to fill most of the particulars in the declaration form. The rule specifically provides that the importer of the goods from outside the State shall furnish or cause to be furnished a declaration in form S.T. 18A completely filled in all respects in ink and the counter foil of the declaration shall be retained by such dealer and its portions marked ``Original and ``Duplicate shall be carried with the goods in movement. This necessarily implies that these particulars are required to be furnished by the consignee and declaration is also to be of the consignee under his signatures. If the requirement of completely filling form ST 18A is to be read in its proper spirit, then as per Rule 53 of the Rules, all the three portions of form ST 18A, i.e. ``Original, ``Duplicate and ``Counterfoil are to be filled in. Filling of all the three portions of the form ST 18A is possible only when the requisite documents are received along with the goods. Prior to that, when the consignee is required to send form ST 18A to the consignor for the purpose of delivering it to the transporter for carrying it along with the goods, the description of goods, price/estimated value of the goods in rupees, invoice No./Challan No. and date, name and address of the carrier and registration No. of the vehicle carrying goods are not known to him. Until the goods are put in transit by the consignor and the details thereof are sent to him by the consignor, the consignee is not expected to fill in all these information and in that event, in the very nature of things the blank form S.T. 18A duly signed by the consignee is to be sent to the consignor for the purpose of delivering it to the transporter for carrying it along with the goods. After the receipt of the goods, the consignee will be in a position to fill in the requisite informations in form S.T. 18A and then deposit the same with the department. After the receipt of the goods, the consignee will be in a position to fill in the requisite informations in form S.T. 18A and then deposit the same with the department. If those particulars are to be filled by the consignor though no such obligation is specifically prescribed, then not filling of such particulars becomes a default of the consignor. It is implicit that in such circumstance, consignee cannot be responsible for carrying of blank form with the goods. Thus, there cannot be inference of mens rea to evade/avoid the payment of tax by the assessee-respondent merely because the forms were found to be incomplete. In this view of the matter carrying unfilled form S.T. 18A along with the goods is not a breach of provisions of section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. In Paragraph 14 it is further observed as follows:- ``14. Moreover, the substantive part of the declaration in form ST 18A is the requisite declaration and undoubtedly by the importer of goods as envisaged in the form about payment of tax. That undoubtedly the respondent has given and the other particulars referred in the form when are unequivocally available from all other requisite documents, about veracity of which there is no doubt, it cannot be said that such a mistake was more than a technical breach of procedural provision. The case will squarely be within the ratio of Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa (1970) 25 STC 211 (SC). (25). A levy of penalty u/S. 78(5) of the RST Act was challenged on the sole ground that form ST 18A which was accompanying the goods in transit at the time of checking was incomplete in some respects. A Division Bench of this Court comprising of Hon. Mr. Rajesh Balia, J. and Hon. Mr. Sunil Kumar Garg, J. by their judgment in Kalu Ram Madan Gopal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2), dated 4.09.2000, after analysing the scope and ambit of Sec. 78(5) and Rule 53, came to the conclusion that there was no deficiency in furnishing these documents which are required to be carried u/S. 78(2) of the Act and all the informations required under the declaration under the signatures of the importer were already available with the officer-incharge of the checkpost with the requisite documents. In view of the principles enunciated by this Court, as noticed from the judgment of this Court in D.P. Metals vs. State of Rajasthan (3), no penalty was, therefore, imposable. As a result, the learned Judge of the Division Bench has allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order levying penalty and discharged the security furnished. It is useful to extract the following paragraph: ``Moreover, keeping in view the opinion expressed by this Court in D.P. Metals case, referred to above, affirming the view expressed by this Court in S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 1201/99 ACTO vs. Voltas Ltd., decided on 21.1.2000 and Mahaveer Conductors vs. ACTO (104 STC 65) that penalty for mere non-production of documents by the transporter at the time of inspection does not result in automatic levy of penalty without having an opportunity to show existence of circumstances in which penalty is not leviable and that no penalty is leviable unless nexus between the default committed and intention to evade or avoid any tax on the sale or purchase of goods within the State of Rajasthan is established. Agreeing with the view expressed in Voltas Ltd. and other cases referred to in the above judgment, the Division Bench has further held that provisions for carrying declaration of the importer or carrier is not treated to be mandatory requirement and that the production of such declaration form later on during the course of enquiry even by the importer is substantial compliance of the provisions. In that view of the matter, we do not deem it necessary to examine the issue about vires of Rule 53 in this case. (26). Mr. Sangeet Lodha submitted that Sec. 78 nowhere provides that penalty can only be imposed if the intention to evade tax is established. We are unable to accept or appreciate the said contention. The courts have held that the proceedings for imposition of penalty are declared to be quasi Criminal in character. When the conduct of the respondent in producing all the documents, including the unfilled form 18A disclosing all the details, it is incomprehensible as to how the respondent can be blamed for lapses, if any. In this case the penalty has been proposed to be levied solely on the ground that Form ST 18A which was accompanying the goods in transit at the time of checking was incomplete in some respects. In this case the penalty has been proposed to be levied solely on the ground that Form ST 18A which was accompanying the goods in transit at the time of checking was incomplete in some respects. The respondent has produced all the relevant documents. There is no evasion of tax or mens rea on the part of the respondent to evade the tax. (27). We are of the opinion that the proceedings for imposition of penalty is clearly misconceived. We have, therefore, no hesitation to declare that the proceedings initiated by the petitioners under Sec. 78 of the Act is clearly misconceived. (28). The above discussion itself will indicate that the respondent cannot be held guilty of tax evasion or mens rea. The proceedings are, therefore, initiated by non-application of mind and the same is liable to be set aside as arbitrary and unreasonable. (29). For all the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the Taxation Tribunal is correct and there is no warrant for any interference with the said order, quashing the penalty proceedings. (30). The writ petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.