Sales tax penalty requires a proper finding that goods were unaccounted for, not a bare admission alone.

Penalty under the sales tax law could not be sustained on a supposed admission alone, because the statutory basis required a proper finding that the goods were unaccounted for in the dealer's books. That finding had to rest on examination of the books of account or other satisfactory material, which was not done. The absence of verification and of a recorded finding on relevant evidence justified appellate interference, and the penalty was rightly set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty under the sales tax law was rightly set aside for want of reasonable opportunity and for absence of a proper finding that the goods were unaccounted for.

Analysis: The penalty could not be sustained on the basis of a supposed admission alone, because the basic legal requirement was not complied with. A finding that goods were not accounted for in the dealer's books had to be reached after examination of the books of account or other satisfactory documents. As no such examination or verification was made, and no proper finding was recorded on the relevant material, the appellate authority was justified in interfering with the penalty.

Conclusion: The penalty was rightly set aside and no interference was called for.

---