Tax penalty requires finding of intent to evade tax; without it, penalty under the VAT provision cannot stand.

Penalty under Section 54(1)(14) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 requires a recorded finding that the dealer or importer acted with an intention to evade tax. Because the assessing authority and the Tribunal did not make any clear finding on this essential statutory ingredient, the penalty orders were held unsustainable. The provision was treated as requiring more than mere contravention of the import provisions, and the precedent on absolute liability was distinguished as arising under a different statutory framework.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 54(1)(14) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 could be sustained without a specific finding that the dealer or importer acted with an intention to evade tax.

Analysis: The provision applies where goods are imported or attempted to be imported in contravention of Sections 50 or 51 with a view to evading payment of tax. The statutory language makes the intention to evade tax a material ingredient for imposition of penalty. The orders of the assessing authority and the Tribunal did not record any clear finding on this essential aspect. The absence of such a finding rendered the penalty orders unsustainable. The referred precedent on absolute liability was distinguished on the basis that it dealt with a different statutory provision.

Conclusion: The penalty could not be upheld without a recorded finding on intention to evade tax, and the revisionist succeeded on this issue.

---