Penalty for sales tax transit breach fails when documents are valid and the notice omits the core allegation.

Penalty under section 78(10A) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1995 was treated as unsustainable where the goods were intercepted with requisite documents, the papers were found in order and not shown to be forged or bogus, and the show-cause notice did not allege the foundational breach of abstaining from bringing or stopping the vehicle at the nearest check-post. The provision was described as discretionary, and in the absence of material showing evasion or intention to evade tax, penalty could not rest on suspicion or on the fact that the TIN number was handwritten.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under section 78(10A) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1995 could be sustained against the driver when the goods were accompanied by requisite documents and the show-cause notice did not allege abstention from bringing or stopping the vehicle at the nearest check-post.

Analysis: The goods were found with documents during interception, and both appellate authorities recorded that the papers were in order and not shown to be forged or bogus. The notice issued to the driver did not contain any allegation that he had abstained from bringing or stopping the vehicle at the nearest check-post, which was the foundational ingredient for action under section 78(10A). The penalty provision is discretionary in nature, and where no material shows evasion or intention to evade tax, and the statutory breach is not made out in the notice itself, penalty cannot be imposed merely on suspicion or on the ground that the TIN number was written by hand.

Conclusion: The penalty was not sustainable and the challenge to its deletion failed.

---