Penalty for Form 38 omission fails where supporting transport documents match and no intent to evade tax is proved.

Penalty under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act could not rest solely on a blank column in Form 38 when the goods were accompanied by the declaration form, bills, challans and other supporting documents that matched the consignment. The omission was treated as a procedural lapse, not conclusive proof of transport in contravention of the statute or of an intention to evade tax. On that basis, the finding that no mens rea to evade tax was proved was not shown to be perverse, and the revisional court found no reason to interfere.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 54(1)(14) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 was justified merely because column 6 of Form 38 was left blank while the goods were accompanied by the declaration form and other supporting documents.

Analysis: The liability to penalty under the Act arises when the goods are transported in contravention of the statutory requirement with an intention to evade payment of tax. A blank column in Form 38 may raise suspicion, but it cannot by itself establish that the dealer intended to evade tax. Where the vehicle was carrying Form 38 and the relevant bills, challans and other documents, and the goods tallied with those documents, the omission was a procedural lapse and not conclusive proof of evasion. The finding of the Tribunal that there was no intention to evade tax was not shown to be perverse, and the revisional court found no basis to interfere.

Conclusion: Penalty was not sustainable and the revision failed; the issue was answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

---