Penalty for transport of raw rubber upheld where delivery note discrepancies and missing authority for receipt supported a finding of non-genuine transaction.

Penalty for transport of raw rubber was sustained because the materials on record supported the authorities' finding that the transaction was not genuine. The consignors had purchased the goods, but the delivery note did not satisfactorily explain how or on what authority the goods were received from Chingavanam. The absence of a branch or purchase depot at that location, together with unexplained discrepancies and corrections in the delivery note, justified recourse to the penal provision. The revisional court accepted the concurrent factual findings of the authorities below and upheld the penalty.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed in relation to the transport of raw rubber was justified on the basis of the materials found by the authorities below.

Analysis: The records showed that the consignors had purchased the goods and that the delivery note did not satisfactorily disclose how and on what authority the goods were received from Chingavanam. The absence of branch or purchase depot at Chingavanam, the unexplained discrepancies in the delivery note, and the corrections made therein supported the conclusion that the transaction was not genuine. The revisional court accepted the concurrent factual findings of the authorities below and held that those findings justified resort to the penal provision.

Conclusion: The penalty was upheld and the revision was dismissed against the assessee.

---