Import penalty needs proof of tax evasion intent; missing Form 31 alone is not enough.

Penalty under Section 15-A(1)(o) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act could not be sustained merely because goods were not accompanied by Form 31; the statute also required proof that the import was made with an attempt to evade assessment or payment of tax. The Tribunal found that this evasive intent was not established, noting that the assessee's turnover was exempt under an eligibility certificate and the goods were raw material/components not otherwise liable to tax. In the absence of a challenge to those findings, deletion of the penalty involved no error of law and was confirmed.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 15-A(1)(o) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act could be sustained merely because the goods were not accompanied by Form 31, without proof that they were sought to be imported with an attempt to evade assessment or payment of tax.

Analysis: Penalty under Section 15-A(1)(o) required not only absence of the requisite documents, but also a finding that the goods were being imported from outside the State in an attempt to evade assessment or payment of tax due or likely to be due. The Tribunal found that this second condition was not established, as the assessee's turnover was exempt under an eligibility certificate under Section 4-A and the goods were raw material/components not otherwise liable to tax. Those findings were not challenged by any independent question in revision. In these circumstances, the deletion of penalty could not be said to involve any error of law, and absence of mens rea was fatal to the penalty.

Conclusion: The penalty was not sustainable and the revision failed.

Final Conclusion: The statutory preconditions for imposing the penalty were not satisfied, so the Tribunal's deletion of the penalty stood confirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty for import of goods without the prescribed documents cannot be sustained unless there is also proof of an attempt to evade assessment or payment of tax.

---