Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 54(1)(14) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 was justified where the declaration form accompanying the goods was blank, but the transport had commenced before the abolition of the check-post and the omission occurred because no officer was available to assist in filling the form after the change in procedure.
Analysis: The truck had started before the relevant check-post system was abolished, and the documents other than the declaration form were in order. The blank form was not treated as evidence of concealment, because the circumstances had changed beyond the assessee's control. In the absence of any material showing concealment, mala fide intention, or deliberate evasion, the case did not justify imposition of penalty. The reasoning adopted was consistent with the principle that penalty is not to be levied for a bona fide and technical lapse where the conduct lacks culpability.
Conclusion: The penalty was not sustainable and its cancellation was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The revisional challenge failed, and the order cancelling the penalty remained undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: Penalty under the VAT law is not exigible for a bona fide procedural lapse when there is no concealment, no mala fide intention, and the default results from circumstances beyond the assessee's control.