Non-reporting at ICC alone did not prove tax evasion where transport records and invoices supported bona fide movement of goods.

Mere non-reporting at the ICC and failure to file the prescribed declaration did not, on the facts, establish an attempt to evade tax. The Tribunal relied on transport documents, invoices, movement of goods within Punjab before railway loading, invoice details of container and seal, and receipt of CST with C forms, and found no intent to evade. The High Court found no perversity in those findings and held that no substantial question of law arose. The penalty was therefore not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether mere non-reporting at the ICC and failure to make the prescribed declaration, in the presence of transport documents and other surrounding facts, established an attempt to evade tax so as to justify penalty.

Analysis: The Tribunal had found that the vehicle drivers carried the goods receipts and invoices, the goods were moving from Shahpur to Dappar within Punjab before being loaded onto railway wagons, the invoice mentioned the container particulars and seal, and CST had been charged with C forms also received. On these facts, the Tribunal concluded that non-reporting at the ICC, by itself, did not show a violation of the reporting requirement with an intent to evade tax. The High Court found no perversity in these findings and held that no substantial question of law arose.

Conclusion: Mere non-reporting at the ICC and absence of declaration in the prescribed form did not, on the facts of the case, establish an attempt to evade tax. The penalty was not sustainable.

---