case that entries in all copies are the same. Even though several opportunities were granted by the authorities, particularly under direction issued by this court, it is seen from the impugned orders that inspite of all the opportunities granted at different levels, petitioner did not produce any duplicate delivery note which is the statutory form prescribed for transport of goods under Rule 32(18) of the KGST Rules. The petitioner is bound to maintain the delivery note for transport under Rule 32(18) read with subrule 21 of the KGST Rules. The Intelligence Officer in fact noticed that petitioner had left sufficient space in the delivery note to be filled up. Strangely the quantity recorded by the petitioner as transported in trucks with 6 tonnes to 10 tonnes capacity is 400 kilos, 1000 kilos etc. Obviously the finding of the officer that full load or higher quantity was transported in trucks with higher capacity and that 400 or 1000 kilos accounted by the petitioner is bogus, is quite justified. The petitioner's purchases are from growers and from dealers and it is hard to believe that a truck is sent to bring 400 kg. of rubber when such truck can carry 6 tonnes to 10 tonnes of commodity. The concurrent finding of fact clearly establish evasion of tax and I find the quantum of penalty is also determined in a reasonable manner. As already stated, petitioner did not choose to produce duplicate copies of delivery notes available with them. In the circumstances, I find no ground
