Penalty for forged invoice upheld where factual findings showed the office copy was prepared later and the original was missing.

Penalty under section 76(6) of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act was upheld because the Tax Board's conclusion rested on factual findings that the invoice and office copy were false and forged. The material difference in handwriting, the later preparation of the office copy, and the absence of the original invoice at interception were treated as findings of fact, not as a mere carbon-copy variation. In revision, interference was unwarranted because no illegality, perversity, or question of law arose from those findings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed under section 76(6) of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003, based on the finding that the invoice and office copy were false and forged, called for interference in revision.

Analysis: The Tax Board's conclusion rested on factual findings that there was a material difference in the writing of the original invoice and the office copy, that the office copy appeared to have been prepared later, and that the original invoice was not found at the time of interception. Such findings were treated as findings of fact. In revision, interference is not warranted unless the order suffers from illegality, perversity, or gives rise to a question of law. On the facts recorded, the discrepancy was not a mere variation in carbon impression but indicated a later preparation of the document.

Conclusion: The penalty under section 76(6) was upheld and no question of law arose for interference.

---