Penalty for fake C forms fails absent proof of dealer collusion and culpable involvement in the transaction.

Penalty under section 65 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 could not be sustained against a selling dealer where the authority failed to prove collusion or deliberate involvement in the use of fake C forms. The assessing authority relied on assumptions without further enquiry or witness evidence, while the appellate findings held that the assessee's complicity was not established. In revisional jurisdiction under section 86, interference was unwarranted because the matter rested on concurrent factual findings and no substantial question of law arose. The revisional challenge therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under section 65 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 could be sustained against the selling dealer on the basis of allegedly fake C forms without proof of collusion or deliberate involvement.

Analysis: The assessing authority proceeded on assumptions and did not conduct further enquiry or summon relevant witnesses to establish that the selling dealer was party to the submission of false or bogus C forms. The appellate authorities found, on facts, that collusion by the assessee was not established and that the penalty was therefore not justified. The matter turned on appreciation of evidence and factual inference, and no substantial question of law arose. In revisional jurisdiction under section 86 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, interference was not warranted where the appellate findings were concurrent and based on absence of proof of the assessee's complicity.

Conclusion: Penalty under section 65 could not be sustained against the assessee in the absence of proof of collusion or responsibility for the fake C forms, and the revisional challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty for use of fake statutory forms cannot be upheld unless the authority establishes the dealer's collusion or culpable involvement on the basis of enquiry and evidence; concurrent factual findings to the contrary are not to be disturbed in revision.

---