Mandatory declaration form for inter-State transport upheld as essential, supporting penalty for unexplained delivery route.

Transport of goods from outside the State without producing the prescribed declaration form, coupled with an unsatisfactory explanation for delivery to the assessee's office at Jaipur, was treated as indicating possible tax evasion. The note states that the declaration form was not produced at interception or in response to notice, and Rule 53 was treated as mandatory in such circumstances. On that basis, the penalty was upheld and the deletion of penalty by the Tax Board was held unsustainable; the assessee's petition failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty was justified for transporting goods from outside the State without producing the required declaration form and with an unsatisfactory explanation regarding delivery to the assessee's office.

Analysis: The goods were found being carried to the assessee's office at Jaipur although the purchasers were located at different places, and no convincing explanation was given for that mode of delivery. The declaration form was neither produced at the time of interception nor thereafter in response to the notice. Rule 53 was treated as mandatory in such a case, and the absence of the declaration form attracted the principle that transport without the prescribed form indicates an attempt to evade tax. The authorities relied upon by the assessee were distinguished on facts.

Conclusion: The penalty was rightly imposed, the Tax Board's deletion of the penalty was unsustainable, and the assessee's petition failed.

---