Procedural defects in Form XXXI do not sustain penalty absent proof of tax evasion under sales tax law.

Where imported goods were intended for use in the factory and not for resale, the factual finding meant the goods were not liable to tax in the importer's hands, so section 28-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 was not attracted. The bill, builty and Form XXXI were produced at the check-post, and leaving some columns unfilled was treated as a procedural defect only. Because the authorities recorded no categorical finding of an attempt to evade tax, the penalty under section 15-A(1)(o) could not be sustained and was liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under section 15-A(1)(o) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 was sustainable when the imported goods were for use in the factory and not for resale, form XXXI was filed with some columns left unfilled, and no attempt to evade tax was found.

Analysis: The goods were found to be intended for use and not for sale, and that factual finding remained undisputed. On that basis, the goods were not liable to tax in the hands of the importer, so section 28-A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 was not attracted. The bill, builty and form XXXI were produced at the check-post, and the omission to fill certain particulars in the form was only a procedural defect. The authorities also recorded no categorical finding of any attempt to evade tax, which was necessary before imposing penalty under section 15-A(1)(o) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948.

Conclusion: The penalty under section 15-A(1)(o) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 was not sustainable and was liable to be quashed.

---