Tax penalty requires proof of intent to evade; omission in Form-38 alone was insufficient and the matter was remanded.

Penalty under Section 54(1)(14) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 could not rest only on the omission to fill column 6 of Form-38. The seizure authority had noted that the goods were supported by accompanying documents, but the Tribunal did not examine that material and relied mainly on repeated non-filling of the form, treating the assessee as a habitual defaulter. Because the finding on whether the documents supported the transaction and whether intention to evade tax could be inferred was absent, the matter was remanded for a clear determination on evasion intent.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 54(1)(14) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 could be sustained merely because column 6 of Form-38 was not filled, without a finding on intention to evade tax in the light of the accompanying documents.

Analysis: The seizure authority had noted that the goods were accompanied by documents. The Tribunal, however, did not examine that aspect and proceeded mainly on the repeated non-filling of column 6 of Form-38, treating the assessee as a habitual defaulter. The material question was whether the accompanying documents supported the transaction and whether, on that basis, an intention to evade tax could legitimately be inferred. Since that finding was absent, the matter required reconsideration.

Conclusion: The penalty order was not finally upheld and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a clear finding on the existence or absence of intention to evade tax.

---