ORDER Gopal Krishan Vyas :- Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this revision petition, the Commercial Taxation Department is challenging the order passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer dated May 17, 2002, so also the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Udaipur dated March 12, 1999 whereby the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Udaipur set aside the assessment order dated October 10, 1997 passed by the Assistant Commercial Taxation Officer, Flying Squad, Banswara and set aside the imposed penalty of Rs. 26,900. Upon perusal of the entire record of the case, it is revealed that the Assistant Commercial Taxation Officer, Flying Squad, Banswara, imposed a penalty of Rs. 26,900 for alleged violation of provisions of rule 53 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1995 and section 78(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. The respondent - firm was not having the complete form ST-18A when the goods were in movement so also the form ST-18A was time-barred. The Assistant Commercial Taxation Officer passed the order on October 10, 1997 but in appeal the same was set aside by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Udaipur on the ground that there is no mens rea on the part of the firm to evade the tax so as to be violative of section 78(5) of the Act of 1994. Further when the said order passed by the appellate authority dated March 12, 1999 was challenged before the Tax Board, the Tax Board confirmed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Udaipur. The Tax Board passed the said order ex parte whereby the appeal of the Department was rejected. In my opinion, the controversy involved in this revision petition is squarely covered with the recent judgment of the honourable Supreme Court reported in Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Bajaj Electricals Ltd. [2008] 18 VST 436; [2009] 1 SCC 308. Para 6 of the aforesaid judgment is as follows : "As a matter of preface, we may state that we have come across a number of matters where the Department has sought to impose penalty under section 78(2) read with section 78(5) of the said 1994 Act. It appears that in a large number of cases evasion has taken place on account of the importer's (consignee's) failure to fill in declaration form ST-18A. It appears that in a large number of cases evasion has taken place on account of the importer's (consignee's) failure to fill in declaration form ST-18A. Moreover, in all these cases we found that when scrutiny takes place the declaration forms is sought to be produced after incorporating the details required to be given in that form. In all these cases, the declaration forms are duly signed but important columns are left blank. Those columns are filled in either when scrutiny begins or at the stage of investigation/enquiry. It is important to note that these declaration forms are similar to returns under the Income-tax Act. We are not on the veracity of the contents of that form. Our preface is confined to the importer's (consignee's) refusing to supply particulars which they are required to give in the declaration forms. We have come across numerous cases where columns are left blank. The forms are duly signed. However, the relevant columns are left blank." In the above facts and circumstances of the case, it is abundantly clear that clear violation of section 78(2) of the Act of 1994 was made by the respondent and the controversy involved in this case is squarely covered with the judgment in case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Bajaj Electricals Ltd. [2008] 18 VST 436 (SC); [2009] 1 SCC 308. Therefore, this revision petition is allowed. The order dated March 12, 1999 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Udaipur and the judgment dated May 17, 2002 passed by the Tax Board impugned in this revision petition are hereby set aside and the order passed by the assessing authority dated October 10, 1997 is hereby restored. No order as to costs.