Penalty for tax evasion intent cannot stand on a mere Form XXXI discrepancy where goods were disclosed.

Penalty under Section 15-A(1)(o) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act could not be sustained without a finding that the assessee intended to evade tax. The only defect was a technical discrepancy in Form XXXI, which had been issued in the name of the holding company rather than the subsidiary importer. The goods were otherwise disclosed, and the assessee's relationship to the actual importer did not by itself establish evasion. Questions about accounting treatment and the taxability of the goods were matters for assessment proceedings, not penalty proceedings. In the absence of any recorded finding of intent to evade tax, the penalty was held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 15-A(1)(o) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 could be sustained merely because Form XXXI was issued by the holding company instead of the subsidiary importer, when the goods were otherwise disclosed and no finding of intention to evade tax had been recorded.

Analysis: Penalty under Section 15-A(1)(o) required a finding that the assessee intended to evade tax. The record contained no such finding. The discrepancy in the name on the import declaration form was only a technical lapse. The goods were admittedly disclosed through the import declaration form, the assessee was the holding company of the actual importer, and the dispute as to accounting and taxability of the goods remained a matter for assessment proceedings, not penalty proceedings.

Conclusion: Penalty could not be imposed in the absence of any finding of intention to evade tax, despite the technical discrepancy in the Form XXXI.

---