Transit document non-compliance attracts penalty even without proof of tax evasion, the Supreme Court confirms.

Non-compliance with transit-document requirements under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 and Rule 53, where goods were carried with an incompletely filled ST-18A form, attracted penalty. The dealer could not avoid liability by arguing that the consignor left the form incomplete or that there was no intention to evade tax, because statutory violation of the prescribed declaration-form requirements was sufficient. The Supreme Court applied its earlier ruling on the same type of non-compliance, rejected the reasoning of the lower forums, upheld the penalty, and allowed the Revenue's appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty was sustainable for carrying goods with an incomplete ST-18A form and whether the dealer could avoid liability on the ground that the consignor had left the form incomplete and there was no intention to evade tax.

Analysis: The goods were intercepted during transit and the authorities found violation of Section 78(2) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 read with Rule 53 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules because the prescribed declaration form was not duly completed. The lower authorities had set aside the penalty on the view that the respondent was not responsible for the consignor's lapse and that no intention to evade tax was proved. The Court held that the issue was covered by its earlier decision treating such statutory non-compliance as attracting penalty, and therefore the reasoning of the High Court and the appellate forums could not stand.

Conclusion: The penalty was upheld and the appeal was allowed in favour of the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: Violation of the statutory requirements for transit documents under the sales tax law attracts penalty notwithstanding the dealer's assertion that the lapse was attributable to the consignor or that there was no intention to evade tax.

---