STR-.585/03-CTO, AE,Udaipur Vs.M/sViral Filaments Ltd., Shastri Nagar, Jaipur. Judgment dt.19.1.2010 1/2 S.B. CIVIL (SALES TAX REVISION PETITION NO.585/2003 CTO, AE,Udaipur Vs.M/sViral Filaments Ltd., Shastri Nagar, Jaipur. Date of order : 19th January, 2010 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. V.K.Mathur with Mr.Lokesh Mathur for petitioner-Revenue. Mr. Ravi Bhansali, for the respondent-assessee. ------- 1. Heard learned counsels. 2. This revision petition has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Tax Board dated 18.4.2002 whereby the learned Tax Board rejected the appeal of the Revenue holding that since the goods in question found in transit namely Polyester Filaments Fibre was not notified in the list of goods for which declaration in the form No.ST 18A was required to be accompanied with the vehicle in question at the time of transit, therefore, no penalty under Section 78(5) of the Act could be imposed on the said ground of absence of form No.ST18A with such goods. 3. Both the Appellate Authorities have concurrently set aside the penalty imposed on the respondent-assessee on this ground that the goods in question were not notified goods and, therefore, penalty under Section 78(5) of the Act could not be imposed on the respondent-assessee. 4. Having heard learned counsels and in view of the well reasoned judgments of the appellate authorities below, this Court STR-.585/03-CTO, AE,Udaipur Vs.M/sViral Filaments Ltd., Shastri Nagar, Jaipur. Judgment dt.19.1.2010 2/2 does not find any question of law to be arising in the present case at the instance of the petitioner-Revenue under Section 86 of the RST Act, 1994 and the appellate authorities have rightly held that in the absence of the goods in question being notified under the relevant notification requiring production of Form No.ST 18 A, no such penalty under Section 78(5) of the Act could be imposed on the respondent-assessee on the ground of absence of Form No.ST 18A at the time of checking goods in transit. There has to be a first requirement of law as breach of which only can entail penal consequences on the respondent-assessee. If there is no requirement at all, there cannot be any question of imposition of any penalty for so called breach. 5. Consequently, this Court finds no force in the revision petition of Revenue. The same is accordingly dismissed. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.6 babulal/