Intent to evade tax is essential for penalty under Trade Tax law; technical breach of Form-31 alone is insufficient.

Penalty under section 15-A(1)(o) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 is not sustained by a mere technical breach of the Form-31 or section 28-A requirements; the decisive element is intent to evade tax. The Court followed the earlier Division Bench view that non-production or defect in the declaration form, without mens rea, does not attract penalty, and noted that the form and accompanying documents were found complete by the authorities. It further held that any alleged intent to evade Entry Tax could not justify penalty under the Trade Tax Act, because the proceeding was under a separate statute. Penalty was therefore not leviable on the facts found.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under section 15-A(1)(o) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 could be sustained for non-production of Form-31 and alleged contravention of section 28-A in the absence of mens rea or intent to evade tax, and whether the alleged intent to evade Entry Tax could justify penalty under the Act, 1948.

Analysis: The Court held that penalty under section 15-A(1)(o) read with section 28-A is not attracted by a mere technical or formal breach; the decisive requirement is an intent to evade tax. It relied on the earlier Division Bench view that mere contravention of the declaration-form requirement is insufficient unless accompanied by malintent, and noted that the inspecting and assessing authorities had found the declaration form and accompanying documents to be complete. The Court further held that the alleged intent to evade Entry Tax could not sustain penalty under the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, because the proceeding was under that Act and not under the separate Entry Tax enactment.

Conclusion: Penalty was not leviable on the facts found, and the revisionist succeeded.

---