JUDGMENT 1. - The Revenue Is aggrieved by the judgment 15.03.2002 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, whereby the learned Board had set aside the order dated 10.07.1997 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes, Bikaner, wherein the learned Commissioner upheld the penalty imposed by the Assessing Authority. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 10.07.1986 at 7:25 PM, a vehicle bearing Registration No. HR-24-6761, was Intercepted by the Revenue officers near village Sangarla. While checking the goods contained in the vehicle, it was discovered that steel sheets worth As. 80,033/- were being transported without being accompanied by the required form ST 18A. Since Revenue was of the opinion that the provisions of See. 78(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1994 were being violated, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee respondent. The assessee submitted the declaration form ST-18A along with the reply. In his reply, he pleaded that since the goods were being sent by the seller without any order, therefore, the said form could not be sent. However, the Assessing Authority did not believe the said plea. Consequently, vide order dated 11.07.1996, the Assessing Authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 16,010/-, being 20% of the total value of Rs. 80,039/. 3. Since the assessee was aggrieved by the penalty order dated 11.07.1996, it filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals). However, the learned Commissioner dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee had the intention to evade the tax. Therefore, vide order dated 10.07.1997, the learned Commissioner upheld the penalty order. 4. Aggrieved by the order dated 10.07.1997, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned Board. Vide judgment dated 15.03.2002, the learned Board accepted the appeal ostensibly on the ground that the department could not prove that the assessee had the requisite "mens rea" for wanting to evade the payment of sales tax. In the absence of proof of mens rea, the Assessing Authority could not impose a penalty upon the assessee. Hence, this revision petition before this Court. 5. Mr. Lokesh Mathur, the learned counsel for the Revenue, has vehemently contended that the Issue vhether the existence of mens rea needs to be proven by the department or not, has already been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Guljag Industries v. Commercial Taxes Officer [2008 (7) SCC 269]. 5. Mr. Lokesh Mathur, the learned counsel for the Revenue, has vehemently contended that the Issue vhether the existence of mens rea needs to be proven by the department or not, has already been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Guljag Industries v. Commercial Taxes Officer [2008 (7) SCC 269]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has already opined that the imposition of a penalty under Section. 78(5) is a civil liability and is not a penalty under a penal statute. Therefore, the existence of mens rea is not essential. Hence, the ground given by the learned Board for setting aside the penalty order is misplaced. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel, Mr. K.S. Yadav, has contended that in the case of State of Rajasthan v. D.P. Metals [ 2002(1) SCC 279 ] , the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the opinion that in case the requisite documents do not accompany the consignment, an opportunity of hearing should be given to the assessee. In the assessee were to produce the relevant documents during the course of assessent proceedings, and in case the documents contain all the relevant details, then no penalty can be imposed. According to the learned counsel, the assessee had submitted the ST-18A form, which contained all the relevant Information with regard to the consignment. Therefore, the department was not justified in Imposing a penalty. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the Impugned judgment and the relevant case law produced at the Bar. 8. In the case of Guljag Industries (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under : "Existence of mens rea Is an essential Ingredient of an offence. However, it is a rule of construction. If there Is a conflict between the common law and the statute law, one has to construe a statute In conformity with the common law. However, if it is plain from the statute that It intends to alter the course of the common law, then that plain meaning should be accepted. Existence of mens rea Is an essential ingredient in every offence; but that presumption is liable to be displaced either by the words of the satute creating the offence or by the subject-matter with-which it deals. Existence of mens rea Is an essential ingredient in every offence; but that presumption is liable to be displaced either by the words of the satute creating the offence or by the subject-matter with-which it deals. A penalty imposed for a tax delinquency is a civil obligation, remedial and coercive in its nature, and is different from the penalty for a crime. Default or failure to comply with Section 78(2) is the failure/default of statutory civil obligation and proceedings under Section 78(5) are neither criminal nor quasi-criminal in nature. The penalty is for statutory offence. Therefore, there is no question of proving of intention or of mens rea as the same is excluded from the category of essential element for imposing penalty. Penalty under Section 78(5) is attracted as soon as there is contravention of statutory obligations. Intention of parties committing such violation is wholly irrelevant. Therefore, the learned Board was unjustified in holding that since the revenue has failed to prove the mens rea of the assessee in wanting to evade the tax, it could not have Imposed the penalty. 9. As observed above by the Apex Court, since a civil liability is being imposed in the form of penalty, the very question of existence of mens rea is alien to imposition of civil liability. The concept of mens rea would be relevant only if the penalty were penal in nature. Hence, the logic given by the learned Board is unsustainable. 10. However, considering the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the D.B. Metals (supra) and considering the fact that the assessee had submitted a completely filled ST-18A form during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer was unjustified in imposing penalty upon it. 11. Hence, although the logic given by the learned Board is unsustainable, Its conclusion that the assessing authority could not have Imposed the penalty Is certainly a valid conclusion. Therefore, this Court upholds the conclusion drawn in judgment dated 15.03.2002. Hence, his petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******