Concurrent findings negating tax evasion intent bar revisional interference under the U.P. VAT penalty regime.

Concurrent factual findings that the goods were duly accounted for, paid by cheque, covered by Form C and accompanied by the relevant documents negated any intention to evade tax under the U.P. VAT Act, 2008. On those findings, the appellate authority and Tribunal found no error, and in revision no infirmity or question of law was shown to justify interference. The result was that revisional interference was unwarranted and the penalty issue was not disturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 54(1)(14) of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008 was sustainable in the absence of any intention to evade tax.

Analysis: The first appellate authority recorded findings that the goods were duly accounted for, payment was made by cheque, the purchase was against Form C, both dealer and purchaser were bona fide, Form 38 had been sent in advance, the excise invoice accompanied the goods, and the goods were raw material for which Cenvat credit was admissible. On the basis of these materials, it was concluded that there was no intention to evade payment of tax. The Tribunal found no error in those factual findings. In revision under Section 58 of the U.P. VAT Act, 2008, no infirmity was shown in the concurrent findings and no question of law arose.

Conclusion: The penalty was not interfered with, and the revision was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: Concurrent factual findings negating intent to evade tax were upheld, leaving no legal ground for revisional interference under the VAT Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional interference is unwarranted where concurrent findings of fact, based on relevant evidence, negate intention to evade tax and disclose no question of law.

---