- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner.
(2.) The petitioner's case is that at the time of inspection, Form504G was found blank in certain particulars. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard is that the particulars which were not filled in, was not intentional and it was only a human error. The supporting documents being there, it could not have been construed to be delinquency and penalty should not have been imposed. The further argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it was not a sale but it was only a stock transfer.
(3.) We are afraid that both the arguments cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that the blank form was never intended or offered to be filled in even at the time of inspection. No attempt was made on behalf of the petitioner or his driver to make the deficiency good even at the time of inspection and to make it clear to the inspecting officer that this was only a human error and those particulars could not have been, in any way, resulted into evasion of tax. The Revisional Authority has noted that some time back, inspection was conducted at the premises of the petitioner and a number of irregularities were found. Therefore, the conduct of the petitioner is not one which could fall within the definition of human error because he has not only defaulted for the second time, but he is in the habit of committing fault like this and if such faults are committed in succession, then what can be inferred is that he had certain objectives which only had one resultant and that is evasion of tax.;