Misdeclaration of goods quantity supported penalty where inspection and transport documents showed a clear discrepancy in declared stock.

Penalty was sustained where inspection records and transport documents showed that the quantity of goods actually carried exceeded the quantity declared in the accompanying papers. The fact-finding authority treated the discrepancy as a clear misdeclaration and inferred that the goods were not correctly disclosed for transport with intent to evade tax, and the HC found no perversity in that conclusion. Objections based on the absence of physical verification did not displace the documentary and inspection evidence. Sections 50 and 54(1)(14) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 were applied to uphold penalty for a difference in the nature or quantity of declared goods.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed for carrying goods in excess of the quantity disclosed in the accompanying documents was justified, and whether the Tribunal was correct in upholding the finding of misdeclaration despite the challenge based on absence of physical verification.

Analysis: The dispute arose from interception of a vehicle carrying granite slabs and tiles where the quantity found on inspection was held to be higher than the quantity disclosed in Form-38 and other documents. The Tribunal, as the final fact-finding authority, recorded that the documents and material on record showed a clear discrepancy in the declared and found quantity, and concluded that the assessee had not correctly disclosed the goods being transported with intent to evade tax. The Court found no infirmity in that factual conclusion. Sections 50 and 54(1)(14) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 were treated as authorising penalty where the nature or quantity of goods is found different from what is declared.

Conclusion: The penalty order was upheld, and the challenge to the Tribunal's decision failed.

Final Conclusion: The revision was dismissed and the questions of law were answered against the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the fact-finding authority records, on the basis of the transport documents and inspection material, that the quantity of goods actually carried exceeds the quantity declared, penalty can be sustained under the taxing statute despite objections as to procedure, unless the finding is shown to be perverse.

---