Transit document photocopies and missing check-post seal were insufficient to sustain penalty where genuineness was not disproved.

Penalty under section 78(10A) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act was found unsustainable where transit goods were supported by the required documents, even though the originals were unavailable because they had been seized by police and photocopies were produced instead. The absence of a check-post seal, by itself, was held insufficient to attract penalty when no inquiry established that the documents were false or fabricated and there was no legal bar on producing photocopies in place of originals. The existing factual and legal findings were sustained, and no substantial question of law arose.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under section 78(10A) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 was sustainable where the goods in transit were supported by photocopies of the requisite documents and no seal of the check-post was affixed.

Analysis: The Tax Board independently found that the accompanying documents required under section 78(2)(a) were available, though in photocopy form because the originals had been seized by the police. It further found that no inquiry had been made to establish falsity of the documents and that there was no legal prohibition against furnishing photocopies when originals were not available. The absence of a check-post seal, by itself, was held insufficient to justify penalty under section 78(10A), especially in view of the existing legal position in an identical fact situation.

Conclusion: The penalty under section 78(10A) was not exigible on the facts found, and the revision petition failed.

Final Conclusion: The revision jurisdiction was not attracted because no substantial question of law arose from the Tax Board's factual and legal conclusions, and the order setting aside the penalty was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere absence of a check-post seal does not justify penalty under section 78(10A) where the transit documents are otherwise available and their genuineness is not disproved.

---