Transit Declaration Form penalty fails where revenue cannot prove goods were meant for delivery inside the State.

Penalty for non-carrying of a Transit Declaration Form could not be sustained unless the revenue also proved that the goods were not meant for delivery outside the State. The record showed invoice and goods receipt accompanied the consignment, and the assessee produced material indicating interstate sale and delivery. In the absence of positive evidence that the goods were intended for, or delivered within, Uttar Pradesh, a presumption based on the driver's conduct was insufficient to meet the cumulative statutory ingredients. The penalty was therefore held unsustainable under Section 54(1)(15)(i) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 54(1)(15)(i) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 could be sustained merely because the Transit Declaration Form was not carried, and whether the revenue had established the further statutory requirement that the goods were not meant for delivery outside the State.

Analysis: The provision invoked for penalty required a cumulative failure: the vehicle in charge had to fail to carry the documents referred to in Section 52 and also fail to prove that the goods were meant for delivery to a dealer or person outside the State. The record showed that the goods were accompanied by invoice and goods receipt, and the assessee produced material to show that the goods were sold for delivery outside the State. No positive evidence was led by the revenue to establish that the goods were intended for delivery within Uttar Pradesh or that they were in fact delivered inside the State. The penalty was upheld only on a presumption drawn from the alleged conduct of the driver in moving the vehicle away, which was insufficient to satisfy the statutory ingredients of the penalty.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 54(1)(15)(i) was not justified and the finding sustaining it was unsustainable.

---