Penalty for omission from return requires conscious concealment, not merely a bona fide taxability dispute.

Penalty under section 16(1)(e) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act was confined to cases of conscious concealment or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars in the return. Mere rejection of the dealer's explanation was insufficient to attract the penal provision. Where the transaction had been disclosed in the books of account produced before the tax authorities and the omission from the return arose from the dealer's bona fide stand that the transaction was not exigible to sales tax, the necessary element of concealment or deliberate inaccuracy was absent. The penalty was therefore not attracted, and the Tribunal's deletion of the penalty was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under section 16(1)(e) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 was attracted for non-inclusion of a transaction in the return when the transaction was recorded in the books of account and the dealer claimed it was not exigible to sales tax.

Analysis: The penal provision applies only where there is a conscious concealment of particulars or a deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars in the return. Mere rejection of the dealer's explanation does not by itself justify penalty. On the facts found, the transaction had been disclosed in the books of account produced before the tax authorities, and the omission from the return was based on the dealer's bona fide stand that no sales tax was payable on that transaction. The necessary element of concealment or deliberate inaccuracy was therefore absent.

Conclusion: Penalty under section 16(1)(e) was not attracted and the Tribunal's setting aside of the penalty was upheld in favour of the assessee.

---