Penalty for undervaluation must match the notice and local market rate, or it cannot stand.

A penalty for undervaluation under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act could not rest on a ground not covered by the show-cause notice, because the assessee was not put to notice under the relevant provision and a penalty cannot travel beyond its pleaded foundation. Undervaluation also had to be assessed by reference to the local market rate at the place of transaction; reliance on rates from other cities did not satisfy the statutory test. The penalty order was therefore unsustainable, and the matter was remitted for further proceedings in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the penalty could be sustained on a ground not covered by the notice issued under Section 54(1)(14) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 and without notice under Section 54(1)(21-B); (ii) Whether undervaluation could be determined on the basis of market rates from places other than the local market area where the transaction took place.

Issue (i): Whether the penalty could be sustained on a ground not covered by the notice issued under Section 54(1)(14) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 and without notice under Section 54(1)(21-B).

Analysis: The notice was issued only with reference to penalty under Section 54(1)(14). The record did not show that the assessee was called upon to meet a case under Section 54(1)(21-B). A penalty order cannot travel beyond the foundation laid in the show-cause notice, and a finding that the notice covered another provision cannot stand when the notice itself contains no such recital.

Conclusion: The penalty was not sustainable on this ground and the finding based on Section 54(1)(21-B) could not be upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether undervaluation could be determined on the basis of market rates from places other than the local market area where the transaction took place.

Analysis: For undervaluation under Sections 48(1)(iii), 48(5) and 54(1)(21-B), the statute requires reference to the value prevalent in the local market area where the transaction had taken place. The authorities relied upon prices from other places such as Lucknow and Kanpur instead of ascertaining the local market rate at the place of transaction. That statutory basis for determining undervaluation was therefore missing.

Conclusion: The determination of undervaluation was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The penalty order could not be sustained and the matter was remitted for further proceedings in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A penalty for undervaluation under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 must be founded on the notice issued and must rest on the local market rate prevalent at the place where the transaction took place.

---