Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether penalty could be sustained merely because column 6 of Form 38 was left blank, in the absence of material showing an intention to evade tax.
Analysis: The goods were intercepted while being transported along with stock transfer documents, including Form 38 and other supporting papers. The omission was confined to non-filling of column 6. The governing principle applied was that penalty under Section 54(1)(14) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008 cannot rest on a bare clerical omission alone. The authority must record satisfaction, on relevant material, that there was an intention to evade payment of tax. Where the transaction was a stock transfer and the goods were otherwise identifiable from the accompanying documents, the absence of a filled column did not by itself establish guilty intent. The revisional court also found no material contradicting the stock transfer character of the movement of goods.
Conclusion: The penalty and the appellate order were unsustainable and were set aside. The revisionist succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: Penalty for procedural defects in transit documents cannot be imposed unless the record discloses a conscious intention to evade tax; a blank column in Form 38, by itself, is insufficient where the transaction is otherwise supported by accompanying documents and no adverse material exists.