Check-post declaration and penalty requirements cannot be extended beyond notified goods or imposed without evidence of tax evasion.

Form ST-18 was not required for transport of a laundry machine because the declaration requirement applied only to goods covered by the State Government's notified list, and the machine did not fall within that category on the facts found. Penalty under the check-post provision could not be sustained where no notice was issued to the owner despite available identifying particulars, and the record did not show any attempt to evade tax. The purchase documents indicated payment of central sales tax, and the goods were being carried for the assessee's own use rather than for sale. The penalty order was set aside and the earlier deletion of penalty was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether form ST-18 was required for the transport of a laundry machine under the check-post declaration provisions; (ii) Whether penalty under the check-post penalty provision could be sustained in the absence of notice to the owner and any material showing attempt to evade tax.

Issue (i): Whether form ST-18 was required for the transport of a laundry machine under the check-post declaration provisions.

Analysis: The declaration requirement applied only to goods notified by the State Government. The notification relied upon covered specified categories such as motor vehicles, electrical goods, refrigerators, cooling equipment, water pumping sets and other enumerated articles. A laundry machine did not fall within the notified category of electrical goods on the facts found by the Court, and the statutory declaration requirement could not be extended beyond the notified list.

Conclusion: Form ST-18 was not required for the transport of the laundry machine, and the assessee was not liable on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty under the check-post penalty provision could be sustained in the absence of notice to the owner and any material showing attempt to evade tax.

Analysis: The record showed that the owner's name and address were available from the documents carried with the vehicle, yet no notice was issued to the owner. The penalty provision was conditional on a tax-evasion element, and the purchase documents showed payment of central sales tax. The goods were being carried for the assessee's own use and not for sale, so the factual basis for inferring evasion was absent. The driver's conduct at the check-post could not by itself justify penalty against the owner where the statutory preconditions were not met.

Conclusion: The penalty could not be sustained against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the penalty order stood set aside, and the earlier appellate order deleting the penalty was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty for non-compliance with check-post declaration requirements can be imposed only when the goods are covered by the notified list, the statutory notice requirement is satisfied, and the facts disclose an attempt to evade tax.

---