Prescribed transport documents for goods movement were mandatory, so penalty and revision restoring it were upheld.

Penalty for movement of goods without prescribed transport documents under the Karnataka VAT framework was upheld because the tax invoice produced at interception lacked mandatory consignee particulars and did not comply with the Rules. The Court held that, where goods are moved pursuant to sale, the person in charge must carry documents meeting the statutory requirements; non-compliance justified levy of penalty. Revisional interference restoring the penalty was also upheld because the appellate order had wrongly set aside a penalty supported by the mandatory statutory scheme, and the revisional reasons were found adequate. No ground for interference was made out.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether penalty was validly levied for movement of goods without the documents required under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act and Rules. (ii) Whether the revisional authority was justified in setting aside the appellate order and restoring the penalty.

Issue (i): Whether penalty was validly levied for movement of goods without the documents required under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act and Rules.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required the person in charge of the vehicle to carry the prescribed documents for transport of goods. Where the goods were moved as a result of sale, the tax invoice had to contain the particulars mandated by the Rules. The invoice produced at interception did not contain the necessary consignee particulars and was not in conformity with the prescribed requirements. The goods were therefore transported without the documents contemplated by the Act and Rules.

Conclusion: The penalty was lawfully levied.

Issue (ii): Whether the revisional authority was justified in setting aside the appellate order and restoring the penalty.

Analysis: Since the original penalty order was supported by the mandatory statutory requirements, the appellate authority's interference was held to be erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The revisional authority was therefore justified in exercising revisional power to restore the penalty order. The Court also held that the reasons recorded in revision were adequate and that no ground for interference was made out.

Conclusion: The revisional order was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on merits, the penalty and revisional order were sustained, and no question of law arose for consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: When goods are transported without the prescribed statutory documents or with an invoice lacking mandatory particulars, penalty under the check-post provisions is sustainable and revisional interference restoring such penalty is justified.

---