Blank declaration form and continuing movement of goods justified VAT penalty under interception rules.

A blank declaration form was treated as equivalent to no declaration form in interception proceedings under the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003, and supporting bills, vouchers and bilty did not cure that defect. Goods were held to remain "in movement" while still under the transporter's control; partial arrival at the destination or partial unloading did not by itself end the movement before full delivery. On that factual and legal basis, the objection under section 76(2) was rejected and the penalty was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was justified where the prescribed declaration form was found blank, and whether the goods could be said to have ceased to be in movement because part of the consignment had reached the destination.

Analysis: The declaration form was admittedly blank except for the seal of the assessee firm. A blank declaration form is treated as equivalent to no declaration form for the purpose of interception proceedings, and the existence of bills, vouchers and bilty does not cure that defect. The expression "goods in movement" was held to include goods still in the possession or control of the transporter, and mere arrival at destination or partial unloading did not the movement when the goods had not yet been fully delivered. The objection under section 76(2) was therefore rejected, and the finding of penalty was treated as a factual conclusion supported by the record and consistent with the governing legal position.

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

---