Misdescription of goods alone does not prove tax evasion; penalty fails without material of deliberate concealment.

Penalty for alleged misdescription of goods was unsustainable where the declaration form, bill and builty were produced at the check-post and the transaction was fully disclosed. The record showed that no sample of the goods was taken for verification despite doubt about their nature, and a mere difference of opinion on description or quality could not, by itself, establish an attempt to evade tax. In the absence of material showing deliberate concealment or evasion, the statutory basis for penalty under section 15A(1)(o) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 was not made out, and the penalty was quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under section 15A(1)(o) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 was sustainable on the ground that the goods were allegedly misdescribed and thereby an attempt to evade tax was made.

Analysis: The declaration form, bill and builty had been produced at the check-post, showing disclosure of the transaction. The record also indicated that no sample of the goods was taken for verification when there was doubt about their nature. A mere difference of opinion regarding the description or quality of the goods was held insufficient, by itself, to establish an attempt to evade tax. In the absence of material showing deliberate concealment or evasion, the statutory basis for penalty was not made out.

Conclusion: The penalty under section 15A(1)(o) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 was not sustainable and was quashed in favour of the assessee.

---