Penalty for blank Form 38 entry requires proof of intent to evade tax, not mere clerical omission.

Penalty under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 for transport of goods is attracted only where the authority establishes an attempt to evade tax. A blank column in Form 38 may create suspicion, but it is not sufficient by itself to sustain penalty unless the surrounding documents and circumstances show the requisite intention to evade. On the facts noted, the vehicle carried the prescribed declaration form and supporting documents, and the omission was treated as a clerical or procedural lapse. The revisional court also noted that the Tribunal had not examined the intent requirement in the correct legal perspective, and the penalty was quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 54(1)(14) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 was sustainable merely because Column 8 of Form 38 was left blank, and whether the finding of absence of intention to evade tax warranted interference in revision.

Analysis: The scheme of Section 50 and Section 54(1)(14) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 shows that penalty for transport of goods is attracted only when the goods are being transported in an attempt to evade payment of tax. A blank column in Form 38 may raise suspicion, but it is not by itself sufficient to impose penalty unless the authority records satisfaction, after considering the surrounding documents and circumstances, that there was an intention to evade tax. The vehicle in question was carrying the prescribed declaration form and other supporting documents, and the omission was treated as a human error or procedural lapse. The revisional court also noted that the Tribunal had not examined the requirement of intent in the correct legal perspective.

Conclusion: Penalty could not be sustained on the sole ground of an unfilled column in Form 38, and the finding leading to levy of penalty was liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The revisionist succeeded, the Tribunal's order was annulled, and the penalty was quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008, penalty for defective import documentation is valid only when the authority establishes an attempt to evade tax; a mere clerical or procedural omission in Form 38 does not, by itself, justify penalty.

---