ORDER : Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J. Instant Sales Tax Revision Petition at the instance of assessee is directed against the order dated 22/06/2012 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 2. Brief facts noticed for disposal of this petition are that sun flower oil was loaded and was in transit in Vehicle No.PB06G/6766 and was coming from Kapurthala (Punjab) to Jaipur. The vehicle was intercepted on 05/08/2008 at Bhadra. The driver Baljeet Singh produced Invoice No.305 dated 01/08/2008 where the consignor of the goods was mentioned as M/s. A.G. Fats Limited, Kapurthala and the consignee was mentioned as M/s. Agro Tech Foods Ltd., Jaipur (the assessee herein). The total weight of the goods was 19,690 Kg. with value of Rs.12,10,955/- and a GR No.26324 dated 01/08/2008 of M/s. Ahmedgarh Tanker Transport, Ludhiyana was also produced. The driver Baljeet Singh also produced Form VAT-47 bearing No.2417595 in which in all there were three parts namely; A, B & C and almost in all the parts, some column were found blank and instantaneously it was also noticed that against the date, month and value, the form was not punched and the officer was of the view that neither the Form VAT-47 was filled in nor being punched and the form could be used again and accordingly issued a show cause notice u/Sec. 76(2)(b) of the Rajasthan VAT Act, 2003 read with Rule 53. 3. On behalf of the assessee, an explanation was filed along with affidavit and it was pleaded that the matter be concluded on the same date itself, interalia, contending that the invoice, builty and even the Form VAT-47 was found with the vehicle and only on account of some inadvertence, some of the columns remained to be filled in and merely because some of the columns were left unfilled, it does not make any difference. It was also contended that the bill contained name of the transport company and GR contained name of consignor with address and that the form can be punched later on as well. It was further contended that there was no intention of reusing the form again. It was also contended that the bill contained name of the transport company and GR contained name of consignor with address and that the form can be punched later on as well. It was further contended that there was no intention of reusing the form again. However, the Anti Evasion Officer was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee and accordingly imposed penalty u/Sec. 76(6) taking into consideration the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Guljag Industries v. Commercial Taxes Officer, (2007) 7 SCC 269 . 4. The matter was carried in appeal by the assessee before Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) (for short, 'DC(A)') and before the DC(A) the same facts were reiterated. The DC(A) was also not satisfied with the explanation offered and accordingly upheld the penalty. 5. The matter was assailed before the Rajasthan Tax Board in further appeal and it was contended that the claim of the Assessing Officer (for short, 'AO') was not justified and there is no occasion of imposition of penalty u/Sec. 76(2). It was further contended that when all documents were found in order, the goods cannot be said to be transported with the intention of evasion of tax. However, the Tax Board also upheld the penalty order. Thus, in unison, all the three authorities came to a finding that there was contravention of provisions of Section 76(2) of the VAT Act as well as Rule 53 of the VAT Rules. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that the AO has been unable to prove as to merely because some of the columns were left unfilled, whether penalty could be imposed. He further contended that only some columns remained to be filled in which even otherwise were not material particulars as laid down by the Apex Court in its judgment rendered in the case of Guljag Industries v. Commercial Taxes Officer (supra). He further contended that this Court in some of the cases, on a few columns remaining unfilled, has come to a conclusion that, if the material particulars remained to be filled in, then the penalty may be justified but if some of the columns, which are not material particulars, remained unfilled, then no occasion arises for imposition of penalty. 7. He further contended that this Court in some of the cases, on a few columns remaining unfilled, has come to a conclusion that, if the material particulars remained to be filled in, then the penalty may be justified but if some of the columns, which are not material particulars, remained unfilled, then no occasion arises for imposition of penalty. 7. Counsel produced Form VAT-47 and with the aid of Form VAT-47 tried to impress upon the Court that the columns, which have been found to be not filled in by the three authorities, are not material particulars in as much as he contended that some of the columns in Part A, which were to be filled in by the consignee, only relate to nature of transaction, place, date and name, remained unfilled. In Part B, some of the columns relating to the place, date and name of consignor remained unfilled and in Part C some of the columns, which were to be filled in by the transporter, relating to name, place, date, status and signature, remained unfilled and according to him, these are not material particulars and thus contended that the penalty could not have been imposed and the impugned order is perverse and relied upon the judgments of this Court rendered in the case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd., Ajmer & Anr. (2013) 37 Tax Update 283 and Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. M/s. REBI Casting (Pvt.) Ltd. & anr., (2013) 37 Tax Update 74. 8. Per-contra, ld. Counsel for the Revenue contended that Rule 53 of the VAT Rules mandates that a person carrying on such goods was required to carry a declaration form (VAT-47) complete in all respects duly filled in and even if one of the columns remained unfilled, in the light of judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Guljag Industries v. Commercial Taxes Officer (supra), it is with the intention of evasion of tax. She further contended that even signatures were not found on the declaration form and such declaration form could always be reused and it is not proper for the assessee to contend that the declaration form was not reusable or could not be reused. She further contended that even signatures were not found on the declaration form and such declaration form could always be reused and it is not proper for the assessee to contend that the declaration form was not reusable or could not be reused. She further contended that to safeguard the interests of Revenue and to avoid the eventualities one more safeguard was introduced in form (VAT-47) that the assessee was required to punch the date of use, value as well as month of use. However, the assessee deliberately did not punch all the three main requirements i.e. date, month and value and the explanation offered is worth rejection. 9. Counsel also dispelled the arguments of the counsel for the assessee that signatures were found on the declaration form and drew attention of the Court towards the pleadings in the petition at Page 9 where the assessee himself has mentioned that signatures were also not made on the declaration form. She thus contended that the AO in the penalty order had merely mentioned about few columns while the assessee himself has agreed that the signatures were also not found on the declaration form. Thus, she contended that the order of the Tax Board is just and proper and all the three authorities have come to a definite finding of fact in unison about imposition of penalty. She relied upon judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Guljag Industries v. Commercial Taxes Officer (supra). 10. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and have perused the order impugned as well as the other orders. 11. At the outset, it would be appropriate to quote Section 76 of the VAT Act as well as Rule 53 of the VAT Rules which read ad-infra :- Sec. 76 of VAT Act : "76. Establishment of check-post or barrier and inspection of goods while in movement (1) The Commissioner may, with a view to prevent or check avoidance or evasion of tax, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct the setting up of a check-post or the erection of barrier or both, at such places as may be specified in the notification, and every officer or official who exercises his powers and discharges his duties at such check-post or barrier by way of inspection of documents produced and goods being moved shall be its Incharge. (2) The owner or a person duly authorised by such owner or the driver or the person Incharge of a vehicle or carrier or of goods in movement shall- (a) Stop the vehicle or carrier at every check-post or barrier, and while entering and leaving the limits of the State bring and stop the vehicle at the nearest check-post or barrier, set-up under subsection (1); (b) carry with him a goods vehicle record including "challans" and "bilties", invoices, prescribed declaration forms and bills of sale or dispatch memos; (c) produce all the documents including prescribed declaration forms relating to the goods before the Incharge of the check-post or barrier; (d) furnish all the information in his possession relating to the goods; and (e) allow the inspection of the goods by the Incharge of the check-post or barrier or any other person authorised by such Incharge. Explanation : For the purpose of this Chapter 'goods in movement' shall mean- (i) the goods which are in the possession or control of a transporting agency or person or other such bailee; (ii) the goods which are being carried in a vehicle or carrier belonging to the owner of such goods; and (iii) the goods which are being carried by a person. (3) The State Government may require by notification that the documents required to be furnished under sub-section (2), shall be furnished by means of such electronic devices, and be accompanied by such processing fee, as may be prescribed. (4) Where any goods are in movement within the territory of the State of Rajasthan, the assessing authority or an officer authorised by the Commissioner in this behalf may stop the vehicle or the carrier or the person carrying such goods, for inspection, at any place within his jurisdiction and the provisions of sub-section (2) shall mutatis mutandis apply. (4) Where any goods are in movement within the territory of the State of Rajasthan, the assessing authority or an officer authorised by the Commissioner in this behalf may stop the vehicle or the carrier or the person carrying such goods, for inspection, at any place within his jurisdiction and the provisions of sub-section (2) shall mutatis mutandis apply. (5) Where any goods in movement, other than exempted goods, are without documents, or are not supported by documents as referred to in sub-section (2), or documents produced appears to be false or forged, the Incharge of the check-post or barrier or the officer authorised under sub-section (4) may- (a) direct the owner or a person duly authorised by such owner or the driver or the person Incharge of the vehicle or carrier or of the goods not to part with the goods in any manner including by retransporting or re-booking, till a verification is done or an enquiry is made, which shall not take more than seven days; (b) seize the goods for reasons to be recorded in writing and shall give a receipt of the goods to the person from whose possession or control they are seized; (c) release the goods seized under clause (b) to the owner of the goods or to a person duly authorised by such owner, during the course of the proceeding, if adequate security of the amount equal to the estimated value of the goods is furnished. (6) The Incharge of the check-post or barrier or the officer authorised under sub-section (4), after having given the owner of the goods or person duly authorised in writing by such owner or person Incharge of the goods, a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after having such enquiry as he may deem fit, shall impose on him for possession or movement of goods, whether seized or not, in violation of the provisions of clause (b) of sub-section (2) or for submission of false or forged documents or declaration, a penalty equal to thirty per cent of the value of such goods." Rule 53 of the VAT Rules : 53. Declaration required to be carried with the goods in movement for import within the State.- (1) A registered dealer, (i) who import from any place out side the State, any taxable goods, as may be notified by the State Government, for sale; or (ii) who receives any taxable goods as may be notified by the State Government, consigned to him from outside the State or by way of branch transfer/depot transfer/stock transfer; or (iii) who intends to bring, import or otherwise receives any taxable goods as may be notified by the State Government, from outside the State for use, consumption, or disposal otherwise than by way of sale; shall furnish or cause to be furnished a declaration in Form VAT-47, completely filled in all respect in ink and ensure that the value, date and month or use of such Form shall be punched at the specified place provided for in the Form. The counterfoil of the declaration Form shall be retained by such dealer and its portions marked as 'Original' and 'Duplicate' shall be carried with the goods in movement. However, where goods covered under single invoice are being carried in more than one vehicle, separate Form VAT-47 shall be accompanied with each of such vehicles along with photo copy of the original invoice and challan of the goods carried in the vehicle. [Provided that subject to such conditions as may be specified by the Commissioner, a registered dealer may also furnish a declaration in Form VAT-47A, electronically through the official web-site of the Commercial Taxes Department of the State. Provided further that a dealer may furnish the details of serial number of Form VAT-47, vehicle number, Invoice/Bill/Dispatch memo number with date and value of goods regarding the goods in movement either through Short Messaging Service (S.M.S.) or through Interactive Voice Response System (I.V.R.S.), to the department on the telephone numbers allotted for this purpose through a pre intimated cellular phone before the goods enter into the territory of the State. On intimation of the aforesaid information the dealer shall receive an Identification number through S.M.S. on same cellular phone. He shall also furnish or cause to be furnished the declaration Form VAT-47 completed in all respect to his assessing authority by the next working day. On intimation of the aforesaid information the dealer shall receive an Identification number through S.M.S. on same cellular phone. He shall also furnish or cause to be furnished the declaration Form VAT-47 completed in all respect to his assessing authority by the next working day. The owner or a person duly authorised by such owner or the driver or the person incharge of a vehicle or carrier or of goods in movement shall intimate the said Identification number to the assessing authority or the person authorised by the Commissioner at the time of checking of goods in movement, which shall be deemed to be prescribed form with goods in movement. (2) The owner or a person duly authorised by such owner or the driver or person Incharge of a vehicle or carrier or of goods, shall carry with him the documents specified in clause (b) of subsection (2) of section 76 including declaration form prescribed in sub-rule (1), in respect of the goods in movement and shall produce the same suo motu before the assessing authority or the officer authorised under sub-section (4) of section 76 at the time of inspection who shall retain the original portion of the declaration form and return the duplicate portion after signature and marking seal in token of having verified it, to person producing it and such officer shall send the retained original portion of the declaration form to the assessing authority or the authorised officer. (3) If the declaration Form referred to in sub-rule (1) in respect of the goods in movement has already been submitted to the assessing authority or the officer authorised under sub-section (4) of section 76, the owner or a person duly authorised by such owner or the driver or person Incharge of the vehicle or carrier or of the goods shall, on inspection by an officer authorised under sub-section (4) of section 76, at any subsequent place, produce the countersigned and sealed copy of the aforesaid declaration along with other documents specified in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 76. Explanation : For the purpose of this rule, 'taxable goods' means all goods except the goods which are exempted from tax in accordance with the provisions of the Act." 12. Explanation : For the purpose of this rule, 'taxable goods' means all goods except the goods which are exempted from tax in accordance with the provisions of the Act." 12. Section 76 of the VAT Act takes into consideration the movement of goods while in transit and it envisages that the owner, driver or incharge of the vehicle, which is carrying on certain goods, shall stop the vehicle or carrier at every check post or barrier while entering and leaving the limits of the State and such vehicle shall carry a goods vehicle record including challan, bilties, invoices, prescribed declaration form and bills of sale and dispatch memos and other documents as envisaged in Section 76. 13. Simultaneously, Rule 53 of the VAT Rules mandates that a declaration form is required to be carried with goods in movement for import within the State and the registered dealer shall furnish or cause to be furnished a declaration in Form VAT-47 completely filled in all respect in ink and ensure that the value, date and month of use of such Form shall be punched at the specified place provided for in the Form. 14. On perusal of the Form VAT-47 as also the findings of the AO, it appears that the AO found that in Part A, the columns relating to name, place, date were blank and in Part B, the columns relating to name, place and date were blank and in Part C, the columns relating to place, status and signatures were not found to be filled in and neither the date, month nor value column was punched and there was no punching at all. The word "shall" having been used is in my view mandatory. 15. The word "shall" having been used is in my view mandatory. 15. It would also be appropriate to quote the pleadings which the assessee himself has admitted in Para 1 at Page 9 in his petition about the signatures having not been made which reads adinfra :- "It is further submitted that when the vehicle was on national highway proceeding towards Jaipur it was checked by the respondent Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer at Bhadra and all the aforesaid documents were produced for verification before the said ACTO who after examining the documents found that all the documents were there as required under section 76(2) of the Act along with the driver except that some of the columns of the aforesaid form VAT 47 were not filled in therefore, opining that theirs is a case of evasion of tax had detained the vehicle and had issued them a notice mentioning therein that in form VAT 47 bearing No.2417595 in the original and 2nd part of Vat 47, the column No.3 of part A name, place, date, status and signatures was not written and in part B the name and place was not written and in part C the name, place, status and signature was not mentioned therein to which a reply was submitted contending inter-alia therein that so far as punching and signature of the consignor is concerned they may be permitted to cure the defects and that the signature of the consignee was there on form VAT 47 along with the rubber seal and against that the name and status of Shri Ramlal Verma may be permitted to be written but their request was not accepted by the Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer and had passed the impugned order imposing penalty of Rs.3,68,102 under section 76(6) of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003." 16. On perusal of the above, it is even admitted by the petitioner herein that even the signatures were not there. 17. The Apex Court in the case of Guljag Industries v. Commercial Taxes Officer (supra) had an occasion to consider scope of Section 78(5) of the RST Act, 1994 which was with reference to the declaration form ST-18-A/ST-18-C which is parimateria to Section 76(6) of the VAT Act, 2003 and now Form VAT-47. The said judgment also quoted in extenso the declaration form ST-18-A and ST-18-C and analysed the form. The said judgment also quoted in extenso the declaration form ST-18-A and ST-18-C and analysed the form. The Apex Court also took into consideration Rule 53 and observed in Para 25 to 29 of the said judgment which reads ad-infra :- "25. There is 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 No. 18A/18C 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 No. 18A/18C. 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. Section 78(2) is a mandatory provision. If the declaration Form 18A/18C 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 noncompliance. 27. Default or failure to comply with Section 78(2) is the failure/default of statutory civil obligation and proceedings under Section 78(5) is 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. 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. 28. Moreover, in the present case, we find that goods in movement carried with Form No. 18A/18C. 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. There is 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. There is 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 18A/18C. 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. 29. It has been repeatedly argued before us that apart from the declaration forms the assessees possessed documentary evidence like invoice, books of accounts etc. to support the movement of goods and, therefore, it was open to the assessees to show to the competent authority that there was no intention to evade the tax. 29. It has been repeatedly argued before us that apart from the declaration forms the assessees possessed documentary evidence like invoice, books of accounts etc. to support the movement of goods and, therefore, it was open to the assessees to show to the competent authority that there was no intention to evade the tax. We find no merit in this argument. Firstly, we are concerned with contravention of Section 78(2) which requires the goods in movement to travel with the declaration in Form 18A/18C duly filled in. It is Section 78(2)(a) which has been contravened in the present case by the assessees by carrying the goods with blank forms though signed by the consignee. In fact, the assessees resorted to the above modus operandi to hoodwink the competent officer at the check-post. As stated above, if the form is left incomplete and if the description of the goods is not given then it is impossible for the assessing officer to assess the taxable goods. Moreover, in the absence of value/price it is not possible for the A.O. to arrive at the taxable turnover as defined under Section 2(42) of the said Act. therefore, we have emphasized the words "material particulars" in the present case. It is not open to the assessees to contend that in certain cases of interstate transactions they were not liable in any event for being taxed under the RST Act 1994 and, therefore, penalty for contravention of Section 78(2) cannot be imposed. As stated herein above, declaration has to be given in Form 18A/18C even in respect of goods in movement under interstate sales. It is for contravention of Section 78(2) that penalty is attracted under Section 78(5). Whether the goods are put in movement under local sales, imports, exports or interstate transactions, they are goods in movement, therefore, they have to be supported by the requisite declaration. It is not open to the assessee to contravene and say that the goods were exempt. Without disclosing the nature of transaction it cannot be said that the transaction was exempt. In the present case, we are only concerned with the goods in movement not being supported by the requisite declaration." (emphasis supplied) 18. In my view, the judgment answers the self same controversy. Even the Apex Court has held that mens rea is not essential in such a situation. 19. In the present case, we are only concerned with the goods in movement not being supported by the requisite declaration." (emphasis supplied) 18. In my view, the judgment answers the self same controversy. Even the Apex Court has held that mens rea is not essential in such a situation. 19. The Larger Bench of this Court in judgment dated 26/02/2015 rendered in the case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (2015) 82 VST 200 (Raj.) and other connected cases took into consideration not only the judgment in the case of Guljag Industries v. Commercial Taxes Officer (supra) but also the other judgments and held in Para 33, 34 & 35 ad-infra :- "33. Section 78(2) of the RST Act, 1994 read with Rule 55 of the RST Rules, 1995, after its amendment in consequence to the judgment in State of Rajasthan And Another v. M/s. D.P. Metals (supra), provides for an opportunity, to be given to produce the required document and/or declaration forms complete in all respects when the goods enters or leaves the nearest check-post of the State. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 55 requires that verification or enquiry shall be completed within seven days from the date of issue of the direction, and for action, if any, warranted in the circumstances of the case, in pursuance to the direction given under sub-clause (a) of clause(4) of Section 78 of the RST Act, 1994, which provides that where any goods in movement, other than exempted goods, are without documents, or are not supported by documents as referred to in sub-section (2), or documents produced appear false or forged, the Incharge of the check-post or the officer empowered under sub-section (3), may direct the driver or the person incharge of the vehicle or carrier or of the goods not to part with the goods in any manner including by retransporting or rebooking, till a verification is done or an enquiry is made, which shall not take more than seven days. 34. The suspicion or doubt on the documents to be false or forged, per se, does not attract levy of penalty under sub-section (5) of Section 78 of the RST Act, 1994. 34. The suspicion or doubt on the documents to be false or forged, per se, does not attract levy of penalty under sub-section (5) of Section 78 of the RST Act, 1994. In such case, an opportunity is to be given under Rule 55(1) of the RST Rules, 1995, to a person, to produce the required documents and/or declaration forms completed in all respects, when the goods enters or leaves the nearest check-post of the State. It is only when a person despite giving such an opportunity, is not able to produce the document and/or declaration forms completed in all respects, when the goods enters or leaves the nearest check-post of the State, or the documents are found to be false or forged, after enquiry, that a penalty may be imposed, which is a civil liability for compliance of the provisions of the Act for the purposes of checking the evasion of tax. It is thus not correct to submit that penalty for submission of false or forged document or declaration, necessarily involves adjudication, for which mens rea is relevant, and is a necessary ingredient. Any doubts in this regard have been clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Guljag Industries v. Commercial Taxes Officer (supra), in which it has been clearly held in para 30, after quoting the provisions of Section 78, that; "In the present case also the statute provides for a hearing. However, that hearing is only to find out whether the assessee has contravened Section 78(2) and not to find out evasion of tax which function is assigned not to the officer at the check-post but to the AO in assessment proceedings. In the circumstances, we are of the view that mens rea is not an essential element in the matter of imposition of penalty under Section 78(5)." 35. In view of the aforesaid discussion, our answers to the questions referred, are as follows :- (i) The requirement of mens rea is not relevant for the purpose of determining the liability for penalty, in terms of Section 78(5) of the RST Act, 1994. (ii) The mens rea is not required to be proved as necessary ingredient for imposition of penalty under sub-section (5) of Section 78, on proving violation of sub-section (2) of Section 78 of the RST Act, 1994. (ii) The mens rea is not required to be proved as necessary ingredient for imposition of penalty under sub-section (5) of Section 78, on proving violation of sub-section (2) of Section 78 of the RST Act, 1994. (iii) The amendment to Rule 55 of the RST Rules, 1995, in pursuance to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan And Another v. M/s. D.P. Metals (supra), authorises the authority empowered, to make an enquiry of violation of Section 78(2), and not to adjudicate as to whether the mens rea was present in violation of sub-section (2) of Section 78, for imposing penalty under subsection (5) of Section 78 of the RST Act, 1994. (iv) The mens rea is not required to be proved as necessary ingredient for imposition of penalty under sub-section (5) of Section 78, on proving violation of sub-section (2) of Section 78 of the RST Act, 1994." (emphasis supplied) 20. This Court in the case of M/s. Bishambhar Dayal Shankar Lal v. Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Alwar (SB Sales Tax Revision No.99 of 2006), decided on 27/09/2013 came to the same conclusion. 21. Counsel for the assessee had also contended that for punching of form, time can be granted or that it is mere technical and such technicality need not come in the way of imposition of penalty. The argument is bereft of any merit, the section and rule envisage an additional feature in Rule 53 of punching to be done in declaration form VAT-47 in addition to filling of all columns taking into consideration further safeguards in frequently misuse or evasion of tax and this is also required to be strictly followed in letter and spirit and cannot be said to mere technicality. The word having used "shall" in my view is mandatory and is to be strictly complied with. 22. Thus, taking into consideration the overall facts and all the three authorities having come to a finding of fact that the material columns remained unfilled and equally important fact is that VAT-47 was not at all punched is sufficient to hold that the AO was well justified in coming to the aforesaid conclusion of imposition of penalty u/Sec. 76(2)(b) and the DC(A) as well as the Tax Board have upheld the finding of the AO, which is just and proper. 23. 23. In view of the aforesaid, no question of law is found to be involved and it being essentially a finding of fact based on documents on record being covered by the judgment in the case of Guljag Industries v. Commercial Taxes Officer (supra) and Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer v. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (supra), the controversy is no more res-integra and I find no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the order impugned so as to call for interference by this Court. The judgments relied upon by counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case in the light of law settled by the Apex Court and Larger Bench of this Court (supra). 24. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. 25. Let a copy of this judgment may be sent by the Registry to Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer. 26. The interim order dated 27/09/2012 shall stand vacated automatically with dismissal of the instant petition.