Penalty cannot be sustained without proof of omitted accounts; transit-pass lapse alone was insufficient under sales tax law.

Penalty under section 13-A(4) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act could not stand where the notice and record alleged only movement of goods without a transit pass, a matter referable to section 15-A(1)(q), and no finding was recorded that the goods were omitted from the dealer's accounts, registers or other documents. The challan identified the transaction details, and there was no cogent rebuttal of the dealer's version that the consignment was duly transported in the course of a bona fide transaction. In the absence of proof of non-recording of the goods, the statutory basis for penalty failed, and the restored penalty was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty could be sustained under section 13-A(4) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, when the show-cause notice and the material on record alleged only movement of goods without a transit pass and there was no finding that the goods were omitted from the accounts, registers or other documents of the dealer.

Analysis: The notice itself was internally inconsistent, because the factual foundation disclosed non-possession of a transit pass, a circumstance relatable to section 15-A(1)(q) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948, and not to section 13-A(4) of that Act. For action under section 13-A(4), the authority had to reach a satisfaction that the goods were omitted from the relevant accounts or documents. No such finding was recorded by either the Sales Tax Officer or the Tribunal. The record instead showed a challan identifying the seller, purchaser, quantity and price of the goods, and there was no counter-affidavit or other cogent material rebutting the petitioner's version that the consignment originated from Dholpur and was transported to Patna. In the absence of proof that the goods were not duly recorded or that the transaction was not bona fide, the basis for penalty failed.

Conclusion: Penalty under section 13-A(4) was not leviable, and the Tribunal's order restoring the penalty could not be sustained.

---