Penalty for trade tax form discrepancy requires proof of conscious intent to evade tax, not a bona fide mistake.

Penalty under Section 15-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 required a recorded finding of conscious intent to evade tax. Mere discrepancy in Form-31 particulars, without examining whether the goods were duly accounted for or whether the omission was accompanied by tax-evading intent, was insufficient. The first appellate authority had found that the assessee had not attempted to evade tax, and a form filled in the name of another trader was treated as a bona fide mistake rather than wilful concealment. On that basis, the penalty was held unjustified.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 15-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 was sustainable in the absence of a finding of intention to evade tax.

Analysis: The penalty provision was attracted only where the authority recorded a conscious intent to evade payment of tax. The Tribunal had relied mainly on a discrepancy in the Form-31 particulars and had not addressed the core question whether the goods were accounted for in the books or whether the omission was accompanied by any tax-evading intent. The first appellate authority had returned a factual finding that the assessee had not attempted to evade tax, and the mere fact that the form was filled in the name of a different trader did not, by itself, justify a penalty. A bona fide mistake or omission, without the requisite intent, could not sustain penal action.

Conclusion: Penalty was unjustified and the revisionist succeeded.

---