Penalty for false VAT declarations cannot cover CST forms; remand unnecessary where statutory basis for liability is absent.

Penalty under section 54(1)(11)(i) of the U.P. VAT Act could not be sustained because that provision applies only to false or wrongful declarations in forms under the U.P. VAT Act, whereas the disputed Form C and Form E-1 were issued under the Central Sales Tax Act. Since the statutory basis for liability was absent, any issue concerning those forms fell outside the U.P. VAT penalty provision. The Tribunal's remand was also unjustified because the existing findings already showed that no wrongful U.P. VAT form had been established, so further inquiry could serve no useful purpose. The penalty and remand order were therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether penalty under section 54(1)(11)(i) of the U.P. VAT Act could be imposed in respect of Form C and Form E-1 issued under the Central Sales Tax Act; (ii) whether the Tribunal was justified in remanding the matter instead of quashing the penalty.

Issue (i): Whether penalty under section 54(1)(11)(i) of the U.P. VAT Act could be imposed in respect of Form C and Form E-1 issued under the Central Sales Tax Act.

Analysis: The penalty provision was held to apply only where a form under the U.P. VAT Act contains a false or wrongful declaration. The disputed forms were forms under the Central Sales Tax Act and not forms under the U.P. VAT Act. Since the foundation of the penalty was confined to those Central Sales Tax forms, the statutory condition for invoking section 54(1)(11)(i) was not satisfied. Any dispute regarding such forms would lie, if at all, in the framework of the Central Sales Tax Act.

Conclusion: The penalty under section 54(1)(11)(i) of the U.P. VAT Act was not sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal was justified in remanding the matter instead of quashing the penalty.

Analysis: The Tribunal had recorded that the forms were under the Central Sales Tax Act and that no wrongful form under the U.P. VAT Act had been shown. In those circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by sending the matter back for further inquiry. As the legal basis for penalty itself was absent, the remand order was unnecessary and unsustainable.

Conclusion: The remand order was unjustified and liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the penalty was set aside, and the remand order was quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty provision confined to false or wrongful declarations in forms under one enactment cannot be invoked for forms issued under a different enactment, and a remand is unwarranted where the factual findings already negate the statutory basis of liability.

---