Technical defect in declaration form cannot sustain penalty where proper documents were produced on demand and no tax evasion was shown

Penalty under the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act was treated as unjustified where the declaration form accompanied the goods, a fresh duly filled form was produced on demand, and the omission in one column was regarded as a technical defect not going to the root of the transaction. The concurrent factual findings that the discrepancy did not indicate tax evasion were held to be free from perversity, so no substantial question of law arose for interference in revision. The penalty order remained set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 78(5) of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was rightly deleted on the ground that the declaration form was produced on demand and the discrepancy was not material, and whether any question of law arose for interference under Section 84 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003.

Analysis: The declaration form ST-18A was found to have an omission in one column and had been filled in with different inks, but the goods were accompanied by a valid declaration form when they left Kolkata. A fresh declaration form duly filled in was produced immediately on demand before the assessing authority, and the defect was treated as not going to the root of the transaction. The earlier breach was held to be technical rather than indicative of tax evasion. In these circumstances, the concurrent findings of the appellate authorities were based on the material on record and did not disclose perversity or a substantial question of law.

Conclusion: The deletion of penalty was upheld and the revision petition failed.

Final Conclusion: The matter was finally determined against the Revenue, with the penalty order remaining set aside on the basis of factual findings and no interference being warranted in revision.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the requisite declaration is produced on demand and the defect is only technical or non-material, the levy of penalty for alleged tax evasion is not justified, and no substantial question of law arises from concurrent factual findings.

---