Penalty for missing transit form requires proof of intent to evade tax, not a mere technical lapse.

Penalty under section 15-A(1)(o) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act could not be imposed merely because goods were not accompanied by form 31 under section 28-A. The statutory scheme required material showing an intention to evade assessment or payment of tax, and the Tribunal erred by sustaining penalty on the technical omission alone without any finding of mens rea. The surrounding facts, including advance payment, prior purchase order, entry in the books of account, and accidental omission, negated evasion. The penalty was therefore deleted.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under section 15-A(1)(o) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act could be sustained merely because the goods were not accompanied by form 31 under section 28-A of the Act, in the absence of a finding that the goods were imported with an intention to evade assessment or payment of tax.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required not only non-compliance with the document requirement under section 28-A, but also material showing an attempt to evade assessment or payment of tax before penalty could be imposed under section 15-A(1)(o). The Tribunal sustained the penalty only on the ground that form 31 was not accompanying the consignment and recorded no finding on mens rea. The surrounding facts showed that the goods formed part of an earlier purchase order, the purchase price had been paid in advance, the goods were reflected in the books of account, and the omission was treated as accidental.

Conclusion: Penalty could not be sustained on a mere technical lapse without a finding of intent to evade tax. The assessee succeeded and the penalty was deleted.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty under section 15-A(1)(o) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act is not attracted by mere absence of the prescribed transit document unless the lapse is coupled with material indicating an intention to evade assessment or payment of tax.

---