Declaration-form penalty requires proof of tax evasion; mere procedural lapse and disclosed entries were insufficient.

Penalty for breach of the declaration-form requirement was held not to follow from a mere procedural lapse where the imported goods were duly entered in the books of account and disclosed before the assessing authority. The decisive requirement under the sales tax provisions was material showing that the import was made with an intention to evade assessment or payment of tax. As no seizure, interception, or other evidence indicated any design to evade tax, the statutory basis for penalty was not established and the penalty was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty could be imposed for breach of the declaration-form requirement when the imported goods were duly recorded in the books of account and there was no material showing an attempt to evade tax.

Analysis: Penalty under the relevant sales tax provisions is not attracted by a mere procedural lapse or by the absence of endorsement or production of the prescribed form alone. The decisive element is material showing that the goods were imported in an attempt to evade assessment or payment of tax. Where the purchases were entered in the books of account and disclosed before the assessing authority, and no seizure or interception revealed any design to evade tax, the statutory basis for penalty is not made out.

Conclusion: The penalty was not sustainable, as no attempt to evade tax was established; the revision was allowed and the penalty was set aside.

---