Technical defect in transit form held insufficient for penalty where disclosures were otherwise complete and no mens rea existed.

Penalty for a transit form defect was held unwarranted where column 6 of Form No. 38 was left blank, but the relevant particulars were otherwise furnished on the reverse side and the documents were in order. The court accepted the Tribunal's finding that there was no concealment, no mala fide intention, no loss to revenue, and no mens rea. The omission was treated as inadvertent and merely technical, so penalty under section 54(1)(14) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 was not leviable.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under section 54(1)(14) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 was justified when the only defect found was that column 6 of Form No. 38 was left blank and the relevant particulars were pasted on the reverse side of the form.

Analysis: The documents were found to be otherwise in order and no discrepancy was noticed on physical verification. The omission was treated as inadvertent and merely technical, since the required information had in fact been furnished, albeit in a different manner because of insufficient space in the printed column. The Tribunal's factual finding that there was no concealment or mala fide intention was accepted. In the absence of loss to revenue and in the absence of mens rea, penalty was held to be unwarranted.

Conclusion: Penalty under section 54(1)(14) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 was not leviable and the assessee succeeded on this issue.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty for a return or transit form defect is not sustainable where the lapse is only technical or inadvertent, there is no concealment, and mens rea is absent.

---