Mandatory movement documents and original records matter; defective transfer notes can justify revisional restoration of penalty.

Revisional interference was upheld because the appellate authority had overlooked material facts and the original record showed non-compliance with mandatory particulars accompanying movement of goods. The transfer note was inaccurate, the goods were unloaded at a place different from that stated in the document, and the supporting originals were not produced before the check-post officer. The later certificate relied on by the assessee did not cure the defect, as it was issued after the event despite purporting to operate from an earlier date. On that basis, breach of section 53(2) was established and the penalty order was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revisional authority was justified in exercising suo motu revisional jurisdiction and restoring the penalty order. (ii) Whether the documents produced and the claimed certified godown position displaced the breach of section 53(2) and the resulting penalty.

Issue (i): Whether the revisional authority was justified in exercising suo motu revisional jurisdiction and restoring the penalty order.

Analysis: The revisional authority examined the record, found that the appellate authority had overlooked material facts, and concluded that the order under appeal was perverse. The original record showed that the goods were unloaded at a different place from the one shown in the transfer note, that the transfer document omitted essential particulars such as date and number, and that the supporting originals were not produced before the check-post officer. On that basis, the revisional authority interfered under the revisional provision and restored the penalty order.

Conclusion: The revisional authority was justified in invoking revisional jurisdiction and restoring the penalty order.

Issue (ii): Whether the documents produced and the claimed certified godown position displaced the breach of section 53(2) and the resulting penalty.

Analysis: The stock transfer note contained an incorrect source and destination description, the goods were in fact unloaded at Jayanagar and not at the alleged showroom, and the certificate relied on by the assessee came into existence only later even though it was stated to operate from an earlier date. The record therefore supported the finding that the mandatory requirements accompanying the movement of goods had not been complied with, attracting penalty under the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The claimed documents and certification did not displace the breach of section 53(2), and the penalty was rightly sustained.

Final Conclusion: The statutory breach was established, the revisional interference was valid, and the penalty order stood restored, leaving no ground for interference in the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where mandatory statutory particulars accompanying movement of goods are absent or unsupported by reliable original documents, revisional interference restoring a penalty order is justified.

---