Penalty for transit-pass non-compliance cannot stand when material evidence on goods identity is ignored; remand ordered.

Penalty for alleged non-compliance with the transit-pass requirement under the U.P. Sales Tax Act could not be sustained where the Tribunal failed to consider material evidence, including the invoice, railway receipts and affidavit bearing on the identity of the goods and the assessee's liability. Because those documents were directly relevant to whether the transit-pass presumption applied, the existing reasoning was insufficient to uphold the penalty. The Tribunal's order was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed for alleged failure to comply with the transit-pass requirement under Section 28-B of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 could be sustained without consideration of the relevant documents and affidavit, and whether the Tribunal's order required interference.

Analysis: The penalty arose from the statutory presumption attached to non-compliance with the transit-pass procedure for goods moving through the State. The record showed that the Tribunal sustained the penalty without dealing with the invoice relating to 57 tins, the railway receipts, and the affidavit filed before the first appellate authority. Those materials bore directly on whether the goods covered by the transit pass were in fact the same goods despatched and whether liability could at all be fastened on the assessee. Since the Tribunal had not addressed these material aspects, the penalty order was not capable of being sustained on the existing reasoning.

Conclusion: The penalty order could not stand in its present form and the matter was required to be decided afresh by the Tribunal.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded to the extent that the Tribunal's order was set aside and the appeal was remitted for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: An order sustaining penalty cannot be upheld where material evidence bearing on liability has not been considered, and such omission justifies remand for fresh decision.

---