JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer against judgment dated 17.4.2002 (Annex.3) passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer in Second Appeal No. 578/2000 by which the learned Tax Board affirmed the judgment dated 30.9.1999 (Annex.2) passed by learned Dy. Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur by which the learned Dy. Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur allowed the appeal filed by respondent and set aside the order dated 13.1.1998 by which the learned Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 61,205/-. 2. It arises in the following circumstances : On 16.10.1998, the Vehicle No. RNG 1015 (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 at Bhuwanipura Railway Crossing (Chittoragrh) and during checking, it was found that the declaration form ST-18A accompanied with the goods was not found filled in up. Since the goods in transit were accompanied with the blank 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. In pursuance to the show cause notice, the respondent-assessee filed reply stating that the form ST-18A was sent by the respondent duly signed to the consignee, who and transporter by mistake sent it blank along with the goods and therefore, the form ST 18A was found blank. 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 13.1.1999 (Annex.1) imposed the penalty of Rs. 61,205/- 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 13.1.1999 (Annex.1) imposed the penalty of Rs. 61,205/- on the respondent. Aggrieved from the said order dated 13.1.1999 (Annex.1), the respondent-dealer preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Jaipur under Section 84 of the Act of 1994 and through judgment dated 30.9.1999 (Annex.2), the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the respondent and set aside the order of the Assessing Authority dated 13.1.1999 (Annex.1) holding inter-alia that no doubt the requisite declaration form ST-18A was found blank, but the form ST-18A was sent by the respondent duly signed to the consignee, who and transporter by mistake sent it blank along with the goods and such mistake can be regarded as technical one and further, since rest papers were found valid and correct one and not bogus one, 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 or there was mens rea on the part of the respondent-dealer to evade tax. Aggrieved from the said judgment dated 30.9.1999 (Annex.2), the petitioner preferred appeal before the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer and the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer through the impugned judgment dated 17.4.2002 (Annex.3) dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and affirmed the findings recorded by the learned First Appellate Authority through judgment dated 30.9.1999 (Annex.2). Hence, this revision petition. 3. In this revision, the main case as put forward by the learned counsel Dr the petitioner is that in cases when at the time of checking, the declaration form ST-18A accompanied with the goods if found blank, 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 30.9.1999 and Annex.3 dated 17.4.2002 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. JP Singh & Sons (SB 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 16.10.1998 when the Vehicle in question carrying to goods of the respondent was checked by the petitioner, the Declaration Form ST-18A accompanied with the goods was found blank and there is also no dispute on the point that rest papers were found valid and correct one. 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 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 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 wilfully, maliciously, fraudulently, recklessly, negligently, corruptly, feloniously, and wantonly. 10. The fundamental principle pertaining to mens rea is based on the maxim actus non facit reum 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 be 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 Prem 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 views 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 blank, but it was sent by the respondent duly signed to the consignee, who and transporter by mistake sent it incompletely filled in up along with the goods and such mistake can be said to be technical one and further, since other papers were found genuine, valid and correct one, 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 one 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. *******