JUDGMENT 1. - Instant petition is directed against judgment dated 29.10.2004 of the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, where the penalty under Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, imposed by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Dy. Commissioner(Appeals), was reversed by the Tax Board. 2. The brief facts are that on 3.1.1998 when vehicle (truck) bearing no. RJ14 G 2807, which was intercepted at Badgaon Check-post, Kota, it was noticed by the Anti Evasion wing that 51 “Iron Forged Flanges” were being transported from Delhi to Gadepan, Kota. The driver of the vehicle produced builty G.R. Nos. 16882 and 16883 of the Transport Corporation of India Ltd. dated 1.1.1998, and sale bill nos. 682, 683, 684 and 685 of M/s Golden Iron & Steel Works, New Delhi, dated 1.1.1998, and ST 18-A declaration form nos. 016194 and 014426. 3. On perusal of the declaration forms ST 18-A it was noticed by the Officer that it was incomplete, as it did not contain the nature of items carried, quantity, weight, value, bill/challan number, so also name and address of the transporter. It was also noticed in the builty that CST number and declaration form number was also left blank. Even in the bills the CST number of purchaser was found wrong and other discrepancies were also noticed. Show-cause notice was issued, reply was filed, however, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied and he imposed penalty of Rs. 1,61,734/-. The said order was assailed before the Dy. Commissioner(Appeals), who also upheld the order of Assessing Officer. The matter was carried in further appeal by the respondent-assessee before the Tax Board, who however deleted the penalty. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that several discrepancies were noticed by the authorised officer who intercepted the vehicle at the check-post and she contended that material particulars were left blank not only in the ST 18-A declaration form, but even in builty, sale bills, several discrepancies were noticed and it was certainly a case of evasion of tax. She contended that requirement of law is that under Rule 53 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1955, it is mandatory on the part of the assessee while transporting the goods that declaration form has to be completely filled in all respect, and material particulars even if found blank, then penalty is required to be levied. She contended that requirement of law is that under Rule 53 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1955, it is mandatory on the part of the assessee while transporting the goods that declaration form has to be completely filled in all respect, and material particulars even if found blank, then penalty is required to be levied. She contended that both the Assessing Officer as well as Dy. Commissioner(Appeals), have given detailed findings, however, Tax Board in a cursory manner, merely held that since other particulars were available, therefore, declaration form ST 18-A being incomplete on such technicalities penalty need not be imposed, which she contended was wholly perverse. She contended that the Tax Board merely on the basis that prior to 22.3.2002 penalty ought to have been levied on the in-charge of the vehicle and since in the instant case the penalty has been imposed on the owner of the goods (assessee), therefore, penalty has been deleted, which is also a perverse finding, and in support of her contention she relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Guljag Industries v. Commercial Taxes Officer (2007) 7 SCC 269 , ACTO v. Bajaj Electricals Limited (2009) 1 SCC 308 , and the Larger Bench judgment of this court in the case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (2015) 82 VST 200 (Raj.) . 5. None appeared on behalf of the respondent despite service of notice. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the Revenue. Admittedly, all the three authorities, though have found that the declaration form ST 18-A was incomplete and not only material particulars (though the declaration form was found) but several columns were found blank at the time when the vehicle was intercepted. The finding recorded by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Dy. Commissioner(Appeals) that material particulars in the declaration form ST 18-A was blank, but there were also other material defects/discrepancies noticed in the sale bill, builty, which have been detailed by the Assessing Officer in the order dated 24.1.1998 and such finding of fact has not been dispelled even by the Tax Board. In my view, the order of the Tax Board is wholly perverse and unjustified in holding that technicalities need not come in the way in carrying declaration form ST 18-A. 7. In my view, the order of the Tax Board is wholly perverse and unjustified in holding that technicalities need not come in the way in carrying declaration form ST 18-A. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Guljag Industries (supra) had an occasion to consider an identical issue about incomplete/blank declaration forms and it has been opined by the Hon'ble Apex Court that when material particulars are lacking in the declaration form, then it goes to prove that the goods were being transported primarily with an intention for evasion of tax. It would be appropriate to quote relevant paras as under:- “24. Form ST 18-A, as quoted above, is in two parts. Part-A has to be filled in by the consignee. Part-B has to be filled in by the consignor. The nature of the transaction as to whether it is by consignment or by depot transfer or by inter-state sale has to be indicated by the consignee. Similarly, the consignee has to indicate the description of the goods. In the present case the consignee (the assessee) has left the requisite columns blank. Part-B has to be filled in by the consignor. Part-B requires the consignor to give the estimated value of goods. He has also to give invoice number and the date. It is important to note that the declaration form is collected by the consignee from his A.O. in the State of Rajasthan. The consignee gives an undertaking to get Part-B filled in by the consignor. Similarly, the consignee gives a declaration that facts stated in Part-A are true to his knowledge. In the present case, the entire form was left blank though it had been signed by the consignee. Therefore, the declaration given by the consignee is meaningless. There are no facts given in Part-A. in there no identity of the goods transported. in there no description of the goods in movement. As stated above, the original has to be placed before the A.O. by the officer at the check-post. If the form which ultimately goes to the A.O. is blank in all material respects then it is impossible for the A.O. to assess the dealer and it is this practise which has resulted in loss of revenue in crores to the State. Without description of the goods imported, it is easy to manipulate the value. If the form which ultimately goes to the A.O. is blank in all material respects then it is impossible for the A.O. to assess the dealer and it is this practise which has resulted in loss of revenue in crores to the State. Without description of the goods imported, it is easy to manipulate the value. If material particulars are not submitted, one fails to understand how assessment could be finalized. Moreover, as submitted on behalf of the State it has become a common practise to circulate the same form again and again resulting in loss of revenue to the State. It is for this reason that Rule 53 of the RST Rules, 1995 contemplates the form to be submitted duly filled in and duly completed. In the present case, the goods in movement were not supported by duly filled in Form ST 18-A/18-C. Therefore, there was contravention of Section 78(2) of the RST Act 1994. 25. in there dichotomy between contravention of Section 78(2) of the said Act which invites strict civil liability on the assessee and the evasion of tax. When a statement of import/export is not filed before the A.O. it results in evasion of tax, however, when the goods in movement are carried without the declaration Form ST 18-A/18-C then strict liability comes in, in the form of Section 78(5) of the said Act. Breach of Section 78(2) imposes strict liability under Section 78(5) because as stated above goods in movement cannot be carried without Form ST 18-A/18-C. 26. We are not concerned with non-filing of statements before the A.O. We are concerned with the goods in movement being carried without supporting declaration forms. The object behind enactment of Section 78(5) which gives no discretion to the competent authority in the matter of quantum of penalty fixed at 30 per cent of the estimated value is to provide to the State a remedy for the loss of revenue. The object behind enactment of Section 78(5) is to emphasise loss of revenue and to provide a remedy for such loss. It is not the object of the said Section to punish the offender for having committed an economic offence and to deter him from committing such offences. The penalty imposed under the said Section 78(5) is a civil liability. Wilful consignment is not an essential ingredient for attracting the civil liability as in the case of prosecution. It is not the object of the said Section to punish the offender for having committed an economic offence and to deter him from committing such offences. The penalty imposed under the said Section 78(5) is a civil liability. Wilful consignment is not an essential ingredient for attracting the civil liability as in the case of prosecution. Section 78(2) is a mandatory provision. If the declaration Form ST 18-A/18-C does not support the goods in movement because it is left blank then in that event Section 78(5) provides for imposition of monetary penalty for non-compliance. 27. 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, in there 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 in there contravention of statutory obligations. Intention of parties committing such violation is wholly irrelevant. 28. Moreover, in the present case, we find that goods in movement were carried with Form ST 18-A/18-C. The modus operandi adopted by the assessees itself indicates mens rea. This is not the case where goods in movement are carried without the declaration forms. In the present matter, as stated above, goods in movement were carried with the declaration forms. These forms were duly signed, however, material particulars were not filled in. The explanation given by the assessees in most of the cases is that they are not responsible for the misdeeds of the consignors. The other explanation given by the assessees is regarding the language problem. in there no merit in these defences. They are excuses. The declaration forms were unfilled so that they could be used again and again. The forms were collected by the consignee from the said Department. The consignee undertakes to see that the value of the goods is supplied by the consignor. It is not open to the consignee to keep the column in respect of the description of goods as blank. Even the column dealing with nature of transaction is left blank. The consignee is the buyer of the goods. He knows the descriptions of the goods which he is supposed to buy. in there no reason for leaving that column blank. Even the column dealing with nature of transaction is left blank. The consignee is the buyer of the goods. He knows the descriptions of the goods which he is supposed to buy. in there no reason for leaving that column blank. Therefore, there are no special circumstances in any case for waiver of penalty for contravention of Section 78(2). The assessees were fully aware that the goods in movement had to be supported by Form ST 18-A/18-C. Therefore, they made the goods travelled with the forms. However, the said forms are left blank in all material respects. Therefore, A.O. was right in drawing inference of mens rea against the assessees.” 8. Therefore, in my view, the instant case is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Guljag Industries (supra). 9. Even the Larger Bench of this court in the case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (2015) 82 VST 200 (Raj.) , has also touched upon this very controversy and has held that carrying of declaration form duly filled-in ought to have been with the vehicle where the goods are being carried and further held that mens rea is not essential in such cases. 10. Insofar as the finding of the Tax Board that no penalty could have been imposed on owner of the goods prior to 22.3.2002 which has been relied upon by the Tax Board, even the said finding has been reversed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in ACTO v. Bajaj Electricals Limited (supra). It would be appropriate to quote the relevant paras of the judgment, which reads as under: “28. If one reads Sub-section (5) of Section 78 in its entirety with Rule 53 of the 1995 Rules, it is clear that penalty was liable to be imposed for importation of any taxable goods for sale without furnishing a declaration in Form ST 18-A completely filled in all respects. The duty to fill and furnish the said Form is imposed on the purchasing dealer. Therefore, Section 78(5) as it stood prior to 22.3.2002 imposed penalty if possession or movement of goods took place inter alia in breach of Section 78(2)(a) on "the person in-charge", which included the owner. The duty to fill and furnish the said Form is imposed on the purchasing dealer. Therefore, Section 78(5) as it stood prior to 22.3.2002 imposed penalty if possession or movement of goods took place inter alia in breach of Section 78(2)(a) on "the person in-charge", which included the owner. In this connection it may be noted that Sub-section (5) comes after Sub-section (4)(c) which talks about release of the goods to "the owner of the goods" on his giving of adequate security. It is the owner (importer) who has to fill in Form ST 18-A. It is the owner who is entitled to seek release under Section 78(4) on giving security. It is the owner who is entitled to hearing under Section 78(5) and, therefore, the expression "person in-charge of the goods" under Section 78(5) would include the owner. Moreover, under Section 78(2) the words used are "person in-charge of a vehicle or carrier of goods in movement" whereas the words in Section 78(5) which comes after Sub-section (4) refer to "person in-charge of the goods". The words "in movement" do not find place in Section 78(5) and therefore the expression "person in-charge of goods" under Section 78(5) was wider than the expression "person in-charge of goods in movement" under Section 78(2)(a). Consequently, the expression "person in-charge of the goods" under Section 78(5) who is given an opportunity of being heard in the enquiry would include the "owner of the goods". 29. Therefore, in our view, the judgment of this Court in the case of Guljag Industries (supra) would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. In fact, our view in the case of Guljag Industries (supra) finds support from the amendment made in Section 78(5) vide Act 7 of 2002 w.e.f. 22.3.2002 by which the expression "person in-charge of the goods" under the old Section 78(5) is substituted by the words "the owner of the goods or a person authorised in writing by such owner or person in-charge of the goods". It is once again emphasised that Act 7 of 2002 is an exercise in substitution. Therefore, the Legislature seeks to clarify the expression "person in-charge of the goods" occurring in Section 78(5) as it stood earlier by Act 7 of 2002. It is once again emphasised that Act 7 of 2002 is an exercise in substitution. Therefore, the Legislature seeks to clarify the expression "person in-charge of the goods" occurring in Section 78(5) as it stood earlier by Act 7 of 2002. In fact, it is interesting to note that even under Section 22-A(3) of the 1954 Act, penalty was leviable on the "owner of the goods" for possession of goods not covered by the Goods Vehicle Record [including Declaration under Section 22-A(3)]. 30. Before concluding, on facts, we may point out that before the A.O. the respondent contended that filling of the Form ST 18-A was the responsibility of the transporter and the consignor (which argument presupposes that the respondent had not filled the particulars in Form ST 18-A) whereas before the Dy. Commissioner(A) a Form was produced purportedly sent to the consignor which was not accepted. According to the Commissioner(A) it was an after-thought. Before the Tax Board it was submitted by the respondent that a blank Form was sent to the consignor. In view of the above prevarication we hold that the Dy. Commissioner(A) was right in holding that all the above excuses are trotted out as an afterthought. Even the production of the Form before the Dy. Commissioner(A) was an afterthought. Under the 1995 Rules, the consignor is required to give the said Form duly filled in when the consignment is ordered. The consignee has to see that the Form is given to the transporter with the complete details duly filled in by the consignor. If one sees the Form it is clear that it shall be the duty of the consignee or his agent (transporter) to see that the consignor fills the Form. Therefore, on facts we are satisfied that the said Form in ST 18-A though signed, remained incomplete. The details required were never supplied. Hence penalty was correctly levied under Section 78 (5) of the 1994 Act.” 11. Taking into consideration the judgments referred to hereinbefore, the facts are quite clear that declaration Form ST 18-A was being carried which has been found to be blank in respect of material particulars and imposition of penalty on owner can be said to be just and proper. Accordingly, in my view the penalty was rightly imposed by the Assessing Officer and has wrongly been deleted by the Tax Board. Accordingly, in my view the penalty was rightly imposed by the Assessing Officer and has wrongly been deleted by the Tax Board. Consequently, the impugned judgment of Tax Board is quashed and set aside, and the petition is allowed. The penalty is restored. No costs.Writ petition allowed. *******