Penalty for tax evasion requires a clear finding of intent; a blank column in transit papers was not enough.

Penalty under Section 54(1)(14) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 cannot be upheld unless the authority records a cogent finding that the defect or omission reflects an intention to evade tax. Where goods were accompanied by Form-38 and the only irregularity was that one column remained blank, a mere technical lapse was insufficient to justify penalty. In the absence of any independent finding of evasion, the penalty was not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 54(1)(14) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 could be sustained without recording a cogent finding of intention to evade tax.

Analysis: The question depended on whether the statutory conditions for penalty were satisfied on the facts, particularly whether there was any recorded material showing intention to evade tax. The assessee had produced goods with Form-38 accompanying the transit, and the only defect noticed was that one column remained blank. The penalty order did not contain any independent finding that the omission reflected an intention to evade tax. The settled view applied in the judgment required the authority to record such a finding before imposing penalty under the provision.

Conclusion: The penalty could not be sustained in the absence of a cogent finding of intention to evade tax.

---