Tax evasion penalty upheld where transit documents were inconsistent and no satisfactory explanation supported the defence.

A penalty under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act was sustained where goods were intercepted in transit with only a purchase requisition form, and the later-produced invoice did not satisfactorily explain the seven-day gap, the absence of the bill at interception, or the claim of multiple transport under the same invoice. The failure to produce check-post records or a transit pass further weakened the defence. On these facts, the finding of attempted tax evasion was held sustainable, and no illegality or irregularity was shown to justify revisional interference. The penalty under Section 47(6) was therefore upheld and the revisional challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed under Section 47(6) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was justified on the finding of an attempt to evade tax, and whether interference in revision under Section 63 of the Act was warranted.

Analysis: The goods were intercepted in transit with only a purchase requisition form accompanying the consignment, while the bill produced later was found to be of the same date as the requisition and to have been raised several days before interception. The authorities found no convincing explanation for the seven-day gap, the absence of the bill at the time of interception, or the claim of multiple transport using the same invoice. The petitioner also failed to produce records from the check post or any transit pass to support the defence. On these facts, the finding of attempted evasion of tax was held to be sustainable, and no illegality or irregularity in the penalty proceedings was shown.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 47(6) was upheld and the revisional challenge failed.

---