Penalty for blank Form 38 entries requires proof of tax evasion, not mere suspicion under U.P. VAT rules.

Under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, penalty for goods import is attracted only when transportation is in an attempt to evade tax. Leaving some columns blank in Form 38 may create suspicion, but it is not enough by itself to prove evasion where the vehicle carries Form 38 and supporting documents, the goods tally with those documents, and there is a recorded finding of no intention to evade tax. Revisional interference is not warranted without perversity or reliance on irrelevant material. A departmental circular also favoured verification of blank columns rather than mechanical penalty.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 54(1)(14) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 was sustainable where Form 38 accompanying imported goods had certain columns left blank, but the goods were accompanied by other supporting documents and there was no finding of intention to evade tax.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 50 of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 requires a declaration form for import of goods and empowers penalty under Section 54(1)(14) only where the goods are transported in an attempt to evade payment of tax. The omission to fill columns in Form 38 may raise suspicion, but it is not by itself sufficient to establish tax evasion. The record showed that the vehicle carried Form 38 and other relevant documents, the goods tallied with those documents, and the Tribunal had recorded a finding that there was no intention to evade tax. The revisional jurisdiction could not disturb that finding in the absence of perversity or consideration of irrelevant material. The departmental circular also supported filling the blank columns on verification rather than mechanically imposing penalty.

Conclusion: Penalty was not justified and the revision challenging the Tribunal's order failed.

---