Transit penalty fails where agricultural produce is found non-taxable and concurrent factual findings remain undisturbed.

Penalty for transit non-compliance under section 22A(7) was treated as unsustainable where the concurrent facts showed that the goods belonged to agriculturists and were not exigible to tax. The revisional jurisdiction was confined to questions of law and could not disturb those factual findings absent perversity. Driver's same-day admission and request for immediate release were treated as sufficient basis for action, so separate notice to the alleged owner or further enquiry was not required on those facts. The revision therefore failed, since the accepted factual basis did not support penalty against goods found to be agricultural produce.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether penalty under section 22A(7) could be sustained when the goods in transit were found without the prescribed documents and the authorities below had concurrently found that the goods belonged to agriculturists and were not exigible to tax; (ii) whether the driver's admission and request for immediate release dispensed with the need for further enquiry and notices to the alleged owner or consignor; (iii) whether the revisional court could interfere with the concurrent factual findings of the lower authorities.

Issue (i): Whether penalty under section 22A(7) could be sustained when the goods in transit were found without the prescribed documents and the authorities below had concurrently found that the goods belonged to agriculturists and were not exigible to tax.

Analysis: The concurrent finding that the goods belonged to agriculturists was treated as a finding of fact not open to interference in revision, the revisional jurisdiction being confined to questions of law. On that factual basis, the goods were held not exigible to tax under the proviso excluding sale proceeds of agricultural produce of an agriculturist from turnover. Where the goods were not taxable, the foundation for penalty for transit irregularity was held to be absent.

Conclusion: The penalty was not sustainable on the facts found by the lower authorities.

Issue (ii): Whether the driver's admission and request for immediate release dispensed with the need for further enquiry and notices to the alleged owner or consignor.

Analysis: It was held that enquiry under section 22A(7) is directed against the owner or person in charge of the goods, and that the driver, being in charge of the vehicle, could validly be proceeded against. The driver's statements, made on the same day and supported by the written request for release, were treated as an admission sufficient to justify immediate action. In the circumstances, the absence of separate notice to the alleged agriculturists or further enquiry was not fatal, since the department was not bound to conduct a roving enquiry where the person proceeded against had admitted the lapse and sought disposal of the matter.

Conclusion: Further enquiry and separate notice to the alleged owner were not required on these facts.

Issue (iii): Whether the revisional court could interfere with the concurrent factual findings of the lower authorities.

Analysis: The authorities below had concurrently found that the goods belonged to agriculturists and that there was no established tax evasion. Such findings were neither shown to be perverse nor otherwise vitiated. The revisional court held that it could not reappreciate evidence to upset those findings, and that the legal consequence flowing from the accepted facts was that no penalty could be imposed as if the transaction involved taxable goods of the dealer.

Conclusion: Interference with the concurrent findings was not warranted.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed because the concurrent factual finding that the goods were agricultural produce not exigible to tax stood undisturbed, and the penalty order was not sustained on those facts.

Ratio Decidendi: In revisional jurisdiction, concurrent findings of fact are not disturbed unless shown to be perverse, and penalty for transit non-compliance under section 22A(7) cannot be sustained where the goods are found, on accepted facts, to be agricultural produce not liable to tax.

---