Declaration-based import control penalty turns on statutory non-compliance, not mens rea or alleged absence of concealment.

Import of goods in contravention of the declaration requirement under the U. P. Sales Tax Act attracted penalty under Section 15-A(1)(o), because liability depended on non-compliance with Section 28-A and not on mens rea. The amended Section 28-A remained valid; the earlier precedent had invalidated only the notification fixing quantity or value, not the statutory provision itself. The assessee could not avoid penalty by relying on absence of intention to conceal, entry in account books, or non-existence of a check-post. The appellate findings were set aside and the penalty order was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 28-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, as amended by the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1979, was invalid so as to negate penalty under Section 15-A(1)(o); (ii) Whether penalty could be avoided on the ground of absence of mens rea, no intention to conceal, entry in account books, or non-existence of a check-post.

Issue (i): Whether Section 28-A of the U. P. Sales Tax Act, as amended by the Uttar Pradesh Sales Tax (Amendment) Act, 1979, was invalid so as to negate penalty under Section 15-A(1)(o).

Analysis: The amended Section 28-A was held to remain valid on the earlier authority relied on by the assessee; only the notification fixing quantity or value had been declared invalid in that precedent. Since the present dispute did not concern the validity of the notification, the statutory provision itself continued to operate. A penalty under Section 15-A(1)(o) is attracted by import or transport in contravention of Section 28-A.

Conclusion: The challenge based on invalidity of Section 28-A failed, and the penalty provision remained applicable in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty could be avoided on the ground of absence of mens rea, no intention to conceal, entry in account books, or non-existence of a check-post.

Analysis: For penalty under Section 15-A(1)(o), the material question was compliance with the requirement of importing goods against the prescribed declaration form. The absence of a check-post did not help, as the goods were admittedly not brought in conformity with Section 28-A(2), and the required declaration was not submitted by the next working day. Considerations such as account-book entry, lack of concealment, or absence of mens rea were held irrelevant to liability under these provisions. The Tribunal's factual finding was based on irrelevant considerations and was therefore liable to be interfered with.

Conclusion: Penalty was rightly leviable, and the assessee's grounds to avoid it were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the orders of the appellate authorities were set aside, and the penalty order was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory penalty is imposed for importing goods in contravention of a declaration-based entry control provision, liability turns on non-compliance with the statutory requirement and not on mens rea, concealment, or similar considerations unrelated to the prescribed condition.

---