Penalty for non-cooperation fails where no legal provision supports it and the appellant's role was not seriously established.

Penalty under indirect tax law could not be sustained where the lower appellate authority had found the appellant's role was not established in any serious manner and the only lapse was non-production of retail sale invoices. In the absence of any legal provision authorising penalty merely for non-cooperation with the investigating officer, the basis for even the reduced penalty failed. The penalty was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty could be sustained or reduced on the ground of non-cooperation with the investigating officer when the Commissioner (Appeals) had found the role of the appellant to be non-serious.

Analysis: The order recorded that the lower appellate authority had itself found the inculpatory role of the appellant not to be established in any serious manner and that the only lapse reflected was non-production of retail sale invoices. In the absence of any legal provision supporting maintenance or imposition of penalty merely for non-cooperation with the investigating officer, the basis for sustaining even the reduced penalty failed.

Conclusion: The penalty was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

---