Clerical mistake in tax documents cannot sustain penalty where goods are accounted for and no evasion is shown.

Penalty under the U.P. Trade Tax Act could not be sustained where the goods tallied with the challan, the transaction was supported by the original transport documents, and the only defect was an inadvertent clerical mention of U.P. trade tax instead of central sales tax. The Court treated the discrepancy as technical, found no material showing concealment or intent to evade tax, and held that detention-based penalty provisions cannot be applied on such a minor document error when the goods are duly accounted for and the transaction is genuine.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty imposed under section 13-A(4) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 was sustainable when the challan and invoice accompanying the goods mentioned U.P. trade tax instead of central sales tax, despite the goods being duly accounted for and the transaction being otherwise genuine.

Analysis: The goods were found to tally with the declaration in the challan, and the transaction was supported by the original challan and transporter's documents. The Court treated the wrong mention of U.P. tax in place of central sales tax as an inadvertent mistake in preparation of the documents. On the facts, the authorities had proceeded on a technical discrepancy without any material showing concealment or an intention to evade tax.

Conclusion: The penalty was not justified and the orders imposing and affirming penalty were set aside in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are duly accounted for and the discrepancy in the invoice or challan is merely an inadvertent clerical mistake without evidence of intent to evade tax, penalty under the trade tax detention provisions cannot be sustained.

---