Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether penalty under section 13A(4) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 was sustainable where the goods were found accompanied by documents, the relevant bill entry was reflected in the books of account, and the only adverse circumstance was non-production of books at the time of inspection.
Analysis: Penalty under section 13A(4) is attracted only when the authority is satisfied that the goods were omitted from being shown in the accounts, registers or other documents. Mere non-production of the books at the time of inspection may create suspicion, but by itself it does not establish the statutory omission required for penalty. The recorded entry of bill No. 26 in the books of account negatived the basis for penalty. The alleged irregular serial numbers of earlier bills were not shown to have been specifically examined or found against the dealer.
Conclusion: The penalty was not justified and its deletion by the appellate authorities was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The revision was dismissed and the order deleting the penalty stood confirmed.
Ratio Decidendi: Penalty under section 13A(4) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 can be imposed only on proof that the goods were omitted from the dealer's accounts or records; mere non-production of books at inspection, without such proof, is insufficient.