Penalty for document discrepancy fails where vehicle papers are genuine and goods remain duly covered by accompanying records.

Penalty under section 22A(7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 could be imposed only where the goods were not covered by the prescribed vehicle documents or where the declaration and accompanying papers were false. The penalty order failed to record any finding of falsity or non-coverage and relied only on a discrepancy in sales tax particulars. The appellate authority and Tax Board found the documents genuine, accepted the explanation for the discrepancy, and held that the goods were duly covered by the documents in the driver's possession. The penalty was therefore not sustainable, and the revision against its deletion failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under section 22A(7) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1954 was sustainable where the discrepancy in the sale documents created suspicion but the documents were found genuine and the goods were held to be covered by the documents accompanying the vehicle.

Analysis: The penalty provision applied only when the goods were not covered by the prescribed goods vehicle record and other documents, or when the declaration and documents were false. The order imposing penalty did not record a finding that the documents were false or that the goods were not covered by them; it proceeded only on a discrepancy in the sales tax particulars. The appellate authority and the Tax Board had concurrently found that the documents were genuine, that a satisfactory explanation had been offered for the discrepancy, and that the goods were duly covered by the documents in the driver's possession.

Conclusion: The penalty was not sustainable and the revision challenging its deletion failed.

---