Check-post penalty applies when transit documents do not match goods carried, and later return of goods does not cure the breach.

Penalty under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act was upheld because the tanker drivers carried documents describing cotton-seed oil while the vehicles actually transported crude palm oil. The statutory requirement to carry documents matching the goods in transit was breached when the goods entered Rajasthan with mismatched papers, so liability under the check-post penalty provision arose at that point. The later return of the goods to Bombay did not cure the default, and the fact that the goods were not ultimately delivered in Rajasthan was immaterial. The Tribunal was therefore not justified in setting aside the penalty.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under section 22A of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 was justified when the goods found in the tankers did not tally with the transport documents, notwithstanding that the goods were later taken back to Bombay and not delivered in Rajasthan.

Analysis: The tankers were checked at the sales tax check-post at Abu Road and the documents carried by the drivers described cotton-seed oil, whereas the tankers actually contained crude palm oil. Section 22A(1) required the person in charge of the vehicle to carry documents in respect of the goods actually transported. Since the documents did not correspond to the goods found in the tankers, the statutory requirement was breached. The subsequent return of the goods to Bombay did not erase the default, because the material event attracting the provision occurred when the goods entered Rajasthan without conforming documents. The fact that the goods were not ultimately delivered in Rajasthan was therefore immaterial.

Conclusion: The penalty under section 22A(7) was rightly imposed and the Tribunal was not justified in setting it aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Liability under the check-post penalty provision arises when goods enter the State with documents that do not conform to the goods actually carried, and the subsequent non-delivery of those goods in the State does not negate the breach.

---