The main legal point established in the judgment is that penalty imposition under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act is justified when the required proof and documents are not produced, and the construction of the provision must be strict in favor of the enforcement of the provision to prevent tax evasion.

M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ URS, J. - This revision petition under section 22 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957, is directed against the order dated December 27, 1987, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Belgaum, as at annexure D and the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, dated August 29, 1989, in Sales Tax Appeal No. 253 of 1988.

2. The facts relating to the impugned orders may be stated briefly and they are as follows : The appellant is a registered dealer under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). He was transporting the goods within Belgaum city limits in a delivery vehicle and when the same was checked by intercepting the vehicle the appellant produced form No. 39 which was required to be carried in the vehicle transporting the goods in accordance with the requirement of sub-section (2) of section 28-A of the Act and which was incomplete in material details inasmuch as it did not contain the specifications which was required to be filed up as well as the date on the form, which a delivery note should necessarily have. The only endorsement in column 3 of form 39 was to the effect "as per register". He was issued with the show cause notice proposing the levy of penalty. After that the penalty proposed was confirmed. The penalty was collected on the same date as it was levied. Aggrieved by that the appellate-dealer, the petitioner before us, filed a first appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes (Appeals), Belgaum. That appeal came to be dismissed affirming the order of the Inspecting Officer who had imposed a penalty under sub-sections (4) and (5) of section 28-A of the Act. On a second appeal to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal the order of the Inspecting Officer who imposed the penalty as well as the first appellate authority came to be confirmed, inter alia, on the ground that the form 39 produced being incomplete in most of the material details was with the intention of avoiding tax by the appellant-dealer and that no evidence of the goods transported in the vehicle was ever subjected to tax or had suffered tax under the Act was forthcoming and as such the appellate authority dismissed the appeal. Therefore the present revision petition, inter alia, on the ground that the following two questions of law fall for consideration by this Court under section 22 of the Act. The questions are :

"1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the levy of the penalty of Rs. 2,228 is in accordance with the rule of law and principles of natural justice as embodies under section 12(2) read with section 28-A(4) ?

2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty of Rs. 2,228 is justified ?"

3. Mr. Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioner, has not disputed that under sub-section (2) of section 28-A of the Act the vehicle which is carrying the goods which are exigible to tax under the Act must carry the delivery note in the prescribed form issued by the prescribed officer. Prescribed form is form 39 prescribed under the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957. The prescribed officer is the assessing authority who has to issue such a form. That form was incomplete is admitted before the appellate authority. It did not contain date or any other materials relating to goods carried in the vehicle. It has never been the case of the appellant-dealer that the goods had at any time suffered tax under the Act and that he had produced that evidence at the time when the vehicle was checked when it was moving within the limits of Belgaum city distributing the goods. So in that circumstance after issuance to show cause notice and on consideration of the cause shown by the person in-charge of the vehicle, penalty came to be imposed.

4. It is not the case of Mr. Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioner-dealer, in this Court that the penalty is in excess of the provision made for such imposition under sub-section (5) of