Wilful under-declaration of VAT turnover attracts the higher penalty where intentional suppression is proved from records and audit findings.

Wilful under-declaration of turnover in monthly VAT self-assessment returns attracts the higher penalty provision, while a bona fide mistake may justify only the lesser penalty. The monthly return scheme requires correct disclosure of turnover, tax rate, input tax credit, and payment, and understatement discovered in audit can support a finding of intentional suppression where records show the omitted turnover. Concurrent factual findings by the statutory authorities that the dealer knowingly omitted substantial turnover were accepted, and such evidence-based findings were not reopened in writ jurisdiction merely because another view was possible. Reliance on decisions arising under different statutory settings was treated as inapposite.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner's under-declaration of turnover in monthly VAT returns was a bona fide error falling under the lower penalty provision, or whether it was a wilful under-declaration attracting 100% penalty under the higher penalty provision.

Analysis: The return-filing scheme under the Act treats monthly returns as self-assessment, subject to scrutiny for correctness of computation, tax rate, input tax credit, and payment. When the understatement of turnover came to light in audit, the assessment and appellate authorities recorded concurrent findings that the petitioner had knowingly and intentionally omitted substantial turnover from monthly returns, even though the turnover appeared in books and waybill records. The Court held that the decisive distinction between the two penalty provisions is intent: a bona fide mistake may attract the lesser penalty, but deliberate or wilful under-declaration falls within the harsher provision. The Court also held that findings of fact based on evidence cannot be reopened in writ proceedings merely because another view may be possible. Reliance on decisions dealing with different statutory settings was held to be misplaced.

Conclusion: The under-declaration was found to be wilful and intentional, not a bona fide error, and the penalty imposed under the higher penalty provision was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a dealer deliberately suppresses substantial turnover in monthly returns and such wilful intent is found on evidence by the statutory authorities, the higher penalty provision for fraud or wilful neglect applies, and such concurrent findings of fact are not ordinarily open to interference in writ jurisdiction.

---