Penalty for deliberate suppression requires material evidence and a fair opportunity to respond before enforcement.

Penalty under section 69 of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 requires material showing deliberate suppression or deliberate failure to make the required endorsement; suspicion, incomplete bills, or an absent rubber stamp endorsement alone are insufficient. The Revenue must also confront the dealer with the material relied upon and give an effective opportunity to reply before penalty is imposed. On the stated record, no such material had been collected, so the penalty could not be sustained on the basis of the existing material.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under section 69 of the Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 was sustainable in the absence of material collected by the Revenue to show deliberate suppression, and whether the dealer was entitled to an opportunity to meet such material before penalty was imposed.

Analysis: The dealer challenged the penalty on the footing that the absence of rubber stamp endorsement and the condition of the purchase bills did not by themselves establish wilful suppression. The legal position applied required the Revenue to produce material showing that the goods had not suffered entry tax earlier and that the absence of the endorsement was deliberate and not accidental or negligent. The record disclosed that no such material had been collected by the Revenue. In these circumstances, the revisional and assessing authorities could not sustain the penalty merely on suspicion or on the basis of torn or incomplete bills without confronting the dealer with the material relied upon.

Conclusion: The penalty under section 69 was not sustainable on the material before the authorities and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The dealer succeeded, and the matter was remitted only to enable the assessing authority to proceed afresh after supplying the material relied upon by the Revenue and granting an opportunity of reply.

Ratio Decidendi: In penalty proceedings, the Revenue must adduce material showing deliberate suppression or deliberate absence of statutory endorsement, and penalty cannot be imposed without confronting the dealer with such material and affording an effective opportunity of defence.

---