Judgment Vineet Kothari, J.-This revision petition is directed against the order of Tax Board, Ajmer dated 30.04.2002 dismissing the appeal of revenue, under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (herein after referred to as The Act) of 1994. 2. Both the Appellate Authorities namely; Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tax Board concurrently found in favour of the assessee respondent that no penalty under Section 78(5) of the Act of 1994 could be imposed on the assessee consignee merely on the ground that a declaration in Form No. ST 18-A prescribed under Rule 53 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1995 was not accompanied with the goods while other documents like bill and bilty were admittedly found at the time of checking of the goods in transit from Delhi to Bhiwadi. 3. Upon checking of Truck No. HR 46-8277 by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Flying Squad, Bhiwadi, District Alwar on 22.03.1999 the said vehicle was found to be carrying iron rods (sariya) and the documents accompanying the said goods showed that the same were sold by M/s. Plaza Steel Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi, under Invoice No. 241 dated 21.03.1999 to the consignee, assessee respondent M/s D.S.R Tor Steel Pvt. Ltd. Bhiwadi and the said bill and bilty No. 241 dated 21.03.1999 also accompanied the said goods. However, since declaration in Form No. ST 18-A was not found, on the alleged violation of Section 78 (2) (a) read with Rule 53(1), a case under Section 78(5) of the Act of 1994 was made against the assessee respondent and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee respondent a penalty of Rs. 62,311/-@ 20% of the value of the goods was imposed on the assessee, respondent by the learned Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Bhiwadi. 4. It was contended before the Assessing Authority by the assessee respondent that the goods in question were not covered by the list of goods notified for the purpose of Rule 53 and, therefore, the Form No. ST 18-A was not required, however, without prejudice to such contention the prescribed Form No. ST 18-A was produced alongwith the said reply. 4. It was contended before the Assessing Authority by the assessee respondent that the goods in question were not covered by the list of goods notified for the purpose of Rule 53 and, therefore, the Form No. ST 18-A was not required, however, without prejudice to such contention the prescribed Form No. ST 18-A was produced alongwith the said reply. It was also contended before the Assessing Authority that since admittedly, the other relevant documents namely; the bill and bilty were found with the vehicle in question the mere absence of declaration of Form No. ST 18-A was not sufficient to attract the penalty particularly when it was the contention of the assessee respondent that such form was not required and also because without prejudice to such contention, Form No. ST 18-A bearing No. 17238-21 and 17238-22 were submitted before the Assessing Authority. 5. The learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) accepting these submissions of the assessee respondent set-aside the penalty and allowed the appeal vide his order dated 28.09.1999 and the further appeal of the Revenue before the Tax Board also failed by the impugned order dated 30.04.2002. Hence, this revision petition at the instance of the Revenue. 6. Cases relating to penalty under Section 78(5) of the Act of 1994 have come to this Court in a large measure and various writ petitions and revision petitions have consumed the time and space of this Court and cases under this head do not appear to bow out despite several pronouncements by this Court. 7. It would have been easier to reject this revision petition at the instance of Revenue merely on the ground that against concurrent findings by two Appellate Authorities of the department against Revenue giving finding of fact as to production of Form No. ST 18-A and consequently choosing not to uphold the penalty under Section 78(5) of the Act of 1994 and that being a matter within the discretion of such Appellate Authorities, the present revision petition under Section 86 of the Act of 1994 which lies to this Court only if a question of law arises out of the order of the Tax Board, was not maintainable as such case is made out and no question of law can be said to have arisen in the matter. 8. 8. But despite earlier pronouncements since a stream of such cases is coming to this Court by way of several such revision petitions, it would be appropriate to discuss this issue in little more detail. 9. Section 78(5) of the Act of 1994, the constitutional validity of which has been upheld by the Honble Supreme Court of India in State of Rajasthan vs. D.P. Metals, 2001 (124) STC 611 (SC), permits imposition of penalty by the Incharge of the Check Post or the Officer empowered under Sub-section (3), after having given the person incharge of the goods a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after having held such enquiry as he may deem fit, to impose on him a penalty equal to 30% of the value of such goods, for possession or movement of goods in violation of provisions of Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) or for submission of false or forged documents or declaration. The said provision uses the term “shall impose” and thus leaving no discretion with the Assessing Authority, not to impose a penalty or to reduce the quantum of penalty lesser than the 30 of goods if the condition precedent for imposition of such penalty is satisfied. Thus, in the cases under Section 78(5) of the Act of 1994, which relates to imposition of a high quantum of penalty of 30% of the value of goods which may be many times higher even the tax imposable of such goods are sold within the State of Rajasthan, naturally, the satisfaction to be recorded for imposition of such penalty by the concerned authorities or the finding of fact on the basis of which such conclusion for imposition of penalty by him, has to be adjudged by the higher appellate authorities and the superior Courts in that perspective, lest such penalties are imposed or realised even for technical or venial breaches or such penalties are imposed without giving proper and reasonable opportunity of hearing or without establishing the deliberateness of the person concerned upon whom such penalty is being imposed in violating provisions of Sub-section (2) (a) of the Act of 1994 or for submission of false or forged documents or declaration. 10. 10. The burden of proof while imposing the penalty upon the person incharge of the goods, which term would include within its ambit consignor or consignee and also the transporter, dependency upon the terms of the contract of sale or purchase of the goods or the contract relating to carriage of such goods, lies upon the Revenue and, therefore, the enquiry to be held in the matter has to be fair, reasonable and transparent. The enquiry cannot be hasty, an empty formality or a make-believe enquiry. Unless upon such enquiry in a proper manner, the Assessing Authority bona fide comes to the conclusion that there has been a deliberate violation of the provisions of Clause (2) (a) of Section 78 or that the documents or the declaration furnished are false or forged, no such penalty can be imposed. The process of enquiry during the penalty proceedings under Section 78(5) of the Act of 1994 includes within its ambit the scope of Sub-section (6) of Section 78 which permits impleadment of a party to the case on the ground of involvement of his interest therein and once such party having interest in the matter is impleaded as a party to the case, all provisions of Section 78 shall apply mutatis mutandis to him. Obviously, this is to take care of the situation, where the transporter fails to produce any of the prescribed documents, either of the consignor or consignee, who have interest in the goods in question is allowed to come forward, apply for impleadment and face further enquiry before the authority concerned. 11. The axe of penalty, if the grounds for that are made out and established by the Assessing Authority would naturally fall upon one of such parties, either the consignor or the consignee or the transporter, who is found to be deliberate and with a contumacious conduct in violating the provisions of Sub-section (2) (a) or submission of false or forged documents. But unless such fair and reasonable enquiry is concluded and objective satisfaction is arrived at by the Assessing Authority on such relevant material, the axe of penalty under Section 78(5) of the Act of 1994 cannot be allowed to fall on anybody, because ultimately the provisions of Section 78 containing a pious object of prevention of evasion of tax has to be strictly construed and penalty unlike tax can neither be allowed to be imposed without relevant material and findings based on such material, nor such penalty can be allowed to be recovered. 12. The absence of Form No. ST 18-A in the present case, at the time of checking of goods in the first instance and its later on production before the Assessing Authority notwithstanding the contention of the assessee, consignee of the goods that such declaration form was not required, by itself , was not sufficient for imposition of penalty under Section 78(5) of the Act of 1994. Without prejudice to the contention of the assessee respondent that such declaration was not required, though the said contention does not appear to have been decided by the Assessing Authority at all, since, the assessee respondent produced the said declaration form at a later stage during the enquiry proceedings before the Assessing Authority and such declaration form was neither found to be false or forged, it was not at all a fit case for imposition of penalty by the Assessing Authority in the first instance. In view of this, the Appellate Authority were absolutely justified in quashing the said penalty and the Tax Board was justified in upholding the order of the First Appellate Authority. 13. Consequently, there is no force in the present revision petition of the Revenue and the same is accordingly dismissed.