Penalty for missing transport documents requires proof of tax evasion; suspicion alone cannot sustain the demand.

Penalty under section 29A(4) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act could not be sustained merely because goods were transported without the prescribed documents under section 29A(2). The decisive requirement was proof of an attempt to evade tax, and the Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal found no evidence of such attempt. That factual finding was accepted, and suspicion was treated as insufficient to replace proof. On that basis, the penalty was found not exigible and the revision failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under section 29A(4) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 was exigible when the transport of goods was not accompanied by the documents prescribed under section 29A(2), but there was no finding or evidence of an attempt to evade tax.

Analysis: The absence of the prescribed transport documents by itself did not conclude the matter. The decisive question was whether the facts established an attempt to evade tax on the goods under transport. The Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, as the final fact-finding authority, recorded that there was no evidence of any such attempt. That finding was treated as one of fact, and the Court found no legal error in the Tribunal's approach. Suspicion could not replace evidence, and neither the lower authorities nor the appellate authority had made a definite finding of tax evasion sufficient to sustain the penalty.

Conclusion: Penalty under section 29A(4) was not exigible and the revision failed.

Final Conclusion: In the absence of proof of an attempt to evade tax, mere non-compliance with the prescribed transport-document requirement did not justify imposition of penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty for transporting goods without prescribed documents cannot be sustained unless the facts establish an attempt to evade tax; suspicion alone is insufficient.

---