Rebuttable presumption of tax evasion cannot sustain penalty where missing declaration forms were later produced and no mala fides were found.

Under the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994, failure to carry prescribed declaration forms at a check-post can raise a rebuttable presumption of intent to evade tax, but penalty must still rest on the facts of the case. Where the invoices and accompanying documents contained the relevant particulars, the missing declarations were later produced, and no satisfactory finding of mala fides, dishonest conduct, or conscious evasion was recorded, the breach was treated as technical and venial. On that basis, the penalty orders were held unsustainable and were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under section 45A of the M.P. Commercial Tax Act, 1994 was sustainable when the transporter failed to carry the prescribed declaration forms at the time of checking but produced the documents later, and no finding of deliberate intent to evade tax was established.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under section 45A makes carriage and production of the prescribed declarations mandatory at the check-post, and the authority may presume an intent to evade tax. However, the presumption is rebuttable and the power to impose penalty must be exercised judicially on the facts of each case. The records showed that the accompanying invoices and other documents contained the relevant particulars, the missing declarations were subsequently produced, and the authorities did not record any satisfactory finding of mala fides, dishonest conduct, or conscious attempt to evade tax. In these circumstances, the breach was treated as technical and venial rather than a deliberate or contumacious violation.

Conclusion: Penalty was not justified on the facts, and the impugned orders imposing and confirming penalty were liable to be quashed.

---