JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer against judgment dated 30.9.2002 (Annex.3) passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer in second Appeal No. 118/2001 by which the learned Tax Board affirmed the judgment dated 7.8.2000 (Annex.2) passed by learned Dy. Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur by which the learned Dy. Commissioner (Appeals), Jodhpur allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and set aside the order dated 3.1.2000 by which the learned Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 24,531/-. 2. It arises in the following circumstances:- On 17.12.1999, the Vehicle No. RJ-19-G/0271 (hereinafter referred to as vehicle in question) which was carrying goods belonging to the respondent firm, was intercepted and checked by the petitioner-Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer and during checking, it was found that the declaration form ST-18A accompanied with the goods was not found completely filled up. Since the goods in transit were accompanied with the incomplete declaration form ST-18A, therefore, a notice under Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1994") for violation of the provisions of Section 78(2) of the Act of 1994 was issued by the Assessing Authority to the respondent-dealer as to why penalty be not imposed. A reply to the said show cause notice was filed by the respondent stating inter-alia that all papers were available at the time when the checking was made by the petitioner Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer and it was further stated that the form ST-18A was sent by the respondent duly signed to the consignee, who and transporter by mistake sent it incompletely filled in along with the goods and therefore, the form ST-18A was not found complete. It was further alleged by the respondent that it was a technical mistake and he had no malafide intention to avoid tax. After examining the matter, the Assessing Authority came to the conclusion that the respondent was guilty of violating the provisions of Section 78(2) of the Act of 1994 and consequently, the Assessing Authority through order dated 03.1.2000 (Annex.1) imposed the penalty of Rs.24,5311- on the respondent. After examining the matter, the Assessing Authority came to the conclusion that the respondent was guilty of violating the provisions of Section 78(2) of the Act of 1994 and consequently, the Assessing Authority through order dated 03.1.2000 (Annex.1) imposed the penalty of Rs.24,5311- on the respondent. Aggrieved from the said order dated 03.1.2000 (Annex.1), the respondent-dealer preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Jodhpur under Section 84 of the Act of 1994 and through judgment dated 7.8.2000 (Annex.2), the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the respondent and set aside the order of the Assessing Authority dated 3.1.2000 (Annex.1) holding inter-alia that no doubt the requisite declaration form ST-18A was found incomplete, but the form ST-18A was sent by the respondent duly signed to the consignor, who and transporter by mistake sent it incompletely filled in along with the goods and such mistake can be regarded as technical ones and further, since rest papers were found valid and correct ones and not bogus, therefore, in these circumstances, the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that from the above facts, it could not reasonably be inferred that the respondent-dealer had any intention of evading tax. Aggrieved from the said judgment dated 7.8.2000 (Annex.2), the petitioner preferred appeal before the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer and the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer through impugned judgment dated 30.9.2002 (Annex.3) dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and affirmed the findings recorded by the learned First Appellate Authority through judgment dated 7.8.2000 (Annex.2). Hence, this revision petition. 3. In this revision, the main case as put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in cases when at the time of checking, the declaration form ST-18A accompanied with the goods if found incomplete, the provisions of penalty clauses embodied in Section 78(5) of the Act of 1994 for violation of the provisions of Section 78(2) of the Act of 1994 are automatically attracted and therefore, because of this fact, the impugned judgments Annex.2 dated 7.8.2000 and Annex.3 dated 30.9.2002 of First Appellate Authority [Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)], and Second Appellate Authority (Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer) respectively cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. 4. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that penalty clauses cannot be attracted automatically unless and until the element of mens rea is established and in this respect, he has placed reliance on the following decisions of this Court:- (i) Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Voltas Limited (2000) 120 STC 217 . (SB Judgment) , (ii) Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Raj. Taxation Tribunal & Anr. (2001) 123 STC 172 (SB Judgment) (iii) M/s. Parasnath Granite India Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2004) 9 Tax Up-date 125 (DB Judgment) (iv) Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Mahaveer Chand Jain & Company (2000) 120 STC 212 (SB Judgment) . (v) Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. J.P. Singh & Sons S.B. Civil Sales Tax Revision No. 823/2002 decided on 6.7.2004 . 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and gone through the entire materials available on record. 6. There is no dispute on the point that on 17.12.1999 when the Vehicle in question carrying the goods of the respondent was checked by the petitioner, the Declaration Form ST-18A accompanied with the goods was found incomplete and there is also no dispute on the point that rest of the papers were found valid and correct. 7. This Court in the case of Mahaveer Chand Jain and Company (supra) held that on the expiry of date, the form ST-18A does not become non est but very same form can be validated and given life for a period by the concerned officer. In that case, this Court further held that the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tax Board were justified in drawing conclusion about want of mens rea to evade or avoid payment of tax on the part of the respondent and in not sustaining the penalty levied by the assessing officer. 8. In my considered opinion, mere contravention of provisions of Section 78(2) of the Act of 1994 cannot authorise the Assessing Authority to impose penalty under Section 78(5) of the Act of 1994 unless there is a mens rea on the part of the trader. Apart from this, mens rea is an essential ingredient for imposing penalty. 9. 8. In my considered opinion, mere contravention of provisions of Section 78(2) of the Act of 1994 cannot authorise the Assessing Authority to impose penalty under Section 78(5) of the Act of 1994 unless there is a mens rea on the part of the trader. Apart from this, mens rea is an essential ingredient for imposing penalty. 9. The word 'mens rea' does not bear a literal meaning (i.e. 'bad mind' or 'guilty mind') because one who breaks the law even with the best of motives still commits a crime. The language is no longer meant to convey the idea of general malevolence characteristic of early common-law usage. The true translation is criminal intention or recklessness. Words typically imposing a mens-rea requirement include will fully, maliciously, fraudulently, recklessly, negligently, corruptly, feloniously, and wantonly. 10. The fundamental principle pertaining to mens rea is based on the maxim actus non facit ream nisi mens sit rea (the intent and act must both concur to constitute the crime). Meaning thereby an act does not make a man guilty without guilty intention to do the guilty act which is made penal by the statute or common law. 11. This Court in Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal (supra) has observed that existence of mens rea on the part of dealer committing breach for avoidance or evasion of payment of tax is sine qua non for levying penalty for such breach which otherwise is of technical nature. 12. Thus, it can be concluded that mens rea is an essential ingredient for imposing penalty under Section 78(5) of the Act of 1994 for violating the provisions of Section 78(2) of the Act of 1994. Furthermore, a difference can be made in respect of intentional contravention of any provision or breach of any provision technically without mens rea. It is made clear that contravention of any provision, which is not accompanied by mens rea, may be treated as technical one and for that breach, provisions of penalty clauses embodied in Section 78(5) of the Act of 1994 cannot he attracted automatically. Further, every contravention cannot entail penalty clause as provided in Section 78(5) of the Act of 1994. 13. Further, every contravention cannot entail penalty clause as provided in Section 78(5) of the Act of 1994. 13. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Parasnath Granite India Limited (supra) has reiterated the same view on mens rea and in that case, the Division Bench over-ruled the two Single Bench judgments of this Court in Mutha Pram Raj v. ACTO (2002) Tax Update vol. 3 page 51 and ACTO v. Shiv Shambhu (2003) Tax Update vol. 7 Part IV page 136 whereby contrary view was taken. 14. In the present case, there are concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and Rajasthan Tax Board that no doubt at the time when the checking was made, the declaration Form ST-18A accompanied with the goods was found incomplete, but it was sent by the respondent duly signed to the consignee. who and transporter by mistake sent it incompletely filled in along with the goods and such mistake can be said to be technical ones and further, since other papers were found genuine, valid and correct, therefore, in these circumstances, no malafide intention or mens rea on the part of the respondent-dealer for avoidance or evasion of payment of tax can be inferred or gathered. These findings of facts cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse and further, they do not suffer from any basic illegality or infirmity. Hence, no interference is called for with the same. 15. For the reasons stated above, no substantial question of law arises in this revision petition and there is no force in this revision petition and the same deserves to be dismissed.Accordingly, this revision petition filed by the petitioner Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer is dismissed. No order as to costs.Revision dismissed. *******