Penalty for goods discrepancy upheld on facts, but reduced where the quantified levy was found excessive

Penalty for mismatch between goods loaded and goods covered by the challan was sustained because the explanation of human error was rejected on concurrent factual findings; the surrounding circumstances, including the driver's conduct and release of goods on security without protest, supported the inference that the discrepancy was real and no perversity was shown. However, the penalty quantified at 150 per cent of the tax was held excessive in the circumstances, as the dealer was bona fide and had no adverse past record, so the amount was reduced to the tax liability.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether penalty under section 13A(4) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 was liable to be interfered with on the ground that the discrepancy in the goods loaded in the truck was due to human error; (ii) whether the quantum of penalty sustained by the appellate authorities was excessive and required reduction.

Issue (i): Whether penalty under section 13A(4) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 was liable to be interfered with on the ground that the discrepancy in the goods loaded in the truck was due to human error.

Analysis: The explanation that different goods were loaded by mistake was rejected by all the authorities below. The record showed that the goods found in the vehicle were different from those mentioned in the challan, that the driver resisted taking the vehicle to the departmental office, and that the goods were released on furnishing security without protest. These circumstances supported the inference that the explanation of human error was not credible. The finding was treated as a pure finding of fact and no perversity was shown.

Conclusion: The levy of penalty under section 13A(4) was upheld and no interference was called for on this ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the quantum of penalty sustained by the appellate authorities was excessive and required reduction.

Analysis: The penalty at 150 per cent of the tax amount was maintained without adequate reasoning. The assessee was a bona fide registered dealer, there was no previous adverse record, and the quantum appeared excessive in the circumstances. The Court therefore considered it to reduce the penalty to the amount of tax.

Conclusion: The penalty was reduced to the amount of tax, resulting in partial relief to the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The liability to penalty was affirmed, but the amount of penalty was substantially reduced to bring it in line with the circumstances of the case.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the discrepancy in goods is supported by surrounding circumstances and concurrent factual findings, interference is unwarranted in revision, but an excessive penalty may be reduced where the authority gives no adequate justification and the dealer has no adverse history.

---