Prescribed declaration for goods transport is mandatory; later documents cannot cure unauthorised movement and the penalty stood upheld.

Transport of goods through Uttarakhand without carrying Form XXXI during road movement constituted a breach of section 28A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948, because the prescribed declaration had to accompany the goods when demanded. The challan for overloading and the driver's statement established that the vehicle was within Uttarakhand, and the lower appellate finding to the contrary was rejected as conjectural. A later Form XXXI used in another transaction could not cure the earlier unauthorised transport. The penalty was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the transport of goods through Uttarakhand without carrying Form XXXI amounted to violation of section 28A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948, and justified the penalty imposed.

Analysis: The truck carrying the goods was challaned at Jashodharpur in Uttarakhand and the challan for overloading, which was never challenged, together with the driver's statement, established that the vehicle was moving within the territory of Uttarakhand. The conclusion of the lower appellate authorities that the truck was not impounded in Uttarakhand rested on conjectural reasoning and could not displace the factual evidence. Section 28A(2) required the importer to carry the prescribed declaration in the prescribed form during road transport of goods, and no Form XXXI or other relevant document was produced when demanded on 11 September 2003. A later Form XXXI used in a subsequent transaction could not validate the earlier unauthorized transportation.

Conclusion: The respondent had violated section 28A(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Trade Tax Act, 1948, and the penalty was rightly imposed.

---