Sufficient cause defeats check-post penalty where technical non-stopping alone cannot justify revisional restoration of penalty.

Penalty for non-stopping of a goods vehicle at a check-post was held unsustainable where the accompanying documents were in order and the explanation was accepted as sufficient cause under section 28A(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. The appellate authority could annul the penalty on that basis, and the revisional authority could not restore it merely because section 28A(2)(d) was technically breached. Revisional interference was unjustified absent any error causing prejudice to the Revenue, because the statutory scheme required due effect to be given to the sufficient-cause defence. The penalty order was annulled and the appellate relief restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether penalty was leviable for non-stopping of the goods vehicle at the check-post when the assessee showed sufficient cause under section 28A(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957. (ii) Whether the revisional authority was justified in exercising suo motu revisional power to restore the penalty after the appellate authority had annulled it.

Issue (i): Whether penalty was leviable for non-stopping of the goods vehicle at the check-post when the assessee showed sufficient cause under section 28A(4) of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957.

Analysis: The levy of penalty arose only from the vehicle not stopping at the first check-post as required by section 28A(2)(d). The record showed that the accompanying documents were in order and no other contravention was found. The appellate authority accepted the explanation as sufficient cause under section 28A(4), and that statutory power requires the authority to consider whether the explanation justifies annulment of the penalty.

Conclusion: The penalty was not sustainable once sufficient cause was accepted; the finding was in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the revisional authority was justified in exercising suo motu revisional power to restore the penalty after the appellate authority had annulled it.

Analysis: Revisional interference under section 22A(1) was unwarranted because the appellate order had turned on acceptance of sufficient cause, not on any error causing prejudice to the Revenue. The revisional authority proceeded only on the violation of section 28A(2)(d) and failed to give effect to section 28A(4), which permits annulment where the explanation is accepted as sufficient.

Conclusion: The suo motu revision was unjustified and the appellate order could not be interfered with; the finding was in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The penalty order stood annulled, the revisional order was set aside, and the appellate authority's order refunding the penalty was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute permits penalty to be annulled on acceptance of sufficient cause, revisional power cannot be used merely to restore the penalty on the basis of the technical breach alone.

---