Transport documents and abolished check-posts meant absence of Form S.T. 18A alone could not prove tax evasion.

Form No. S.T. 18A was intended to identify imported goods and acknowledge tax liability on sale, but its absence during transport did not by itself justify a penal inference where the goods were supported by bilty, invoice, consignment transfer and delivery challan. The amended Rule 62-A had abolished check-posts for the relevant period, creating uncertainty about carriage of the form. In that setting, the presence of other import documents prevented an inference of dishonest intention or deliberate tax evasion, and mere non-carrying of Form No. S.T. 18A was not treated as a penal violation.

---

---

Issues: Whether a dealer could be penalised for not carrying Form No. S.T. 18A during transport of goods imported from another State, and whether dishonest intention to evade sales tax could be inferred when the goods were accompanied by other import documents but the check-post regime had been abolished.

Analysis: The declaration in Form No. S.T. 18A was meant to identify imported goods and to acknowledge liability to pay tax on sale. The Court noted that the vehicle was accompanied by bilty, invoice/consignment transfer and delivery challan showing import from outside the State. It further noted that the amendment in Rule 62-A of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1995 had abolished check-posts for the relevant period, creating an ambiguous situation regarding carriage of Form No. 18A. In these circumstances, the absence of the form, by itself, did not justify an inference of dishonest intention or deliberate evasion, especially when the other transport documents were present.

Conclusion: The dealer could not be treated as having committed a penal violation merely for not carrying Form No. S.T. 18A, and no dishonest intention to evade tax was proved. The revisional challenge was therefore meritless.

---