Penalty for missing declaration form fails without proof of attempt to evade tax under trade tax law.

Penalty under section 15A(1)(o) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 could not be sustained merely because goods were not accompanied by the declaration form. The Court applied the principle that the revenue must establish an attempt to evade tax before seizure or penalty can be upheld, and found that the bill and builty were produced at the check-post while the only lapse was non-production of the form, which by itself was insufficient. The penalty order was therefore liable to be quashed in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under section 15A(1)(o) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 could be sustained merely because the goods were not accompanied by the declaration form, in the absence of any finding of an attempt to evade tax.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required the revenue to establish an attempt to evade tax before seizure or penalty could be upheld. The record showed that the bill and builty were produced at the check-post and the explanation was that the declaration form had been left with the seller. The seizure and penalty orders proceeded only on the absence of the declaration form and did not record any material showing an attempt to evade tax. On the settled principle applied by the Court, the absence of the form by itself was insufficient to justify penalty.

Conclusion: The penalty was not sustainable and was liable to be quashed in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded and the penalty order could not stand because the essential ingredient of an attempt to evade tax was not established.

Ratio Decidendi: Penalty under section 15A(1)(o) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 cannot be imposed solely for non-production of the declaration form unless the authorities establish an attempt to evade tax.

---