https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156312 Penalty under section 15-A(1)(d) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was held unsustainable because the department did not prove false disclosure of purchases or actual tax avoidance. Penalty proceedings were treated as quasi-criminal, so mens rea remained essential and the burden could not be shifted to the assessee by invoking section 12-A, which applies to assessment rather than penalty. The department was required to produce material showing that the disclosed purchases were unreliable and that tax had in fact been avoided. As the assessee was a recognised certificate holder under section 4-B and no tax was leviable on the purchases, the penalty basis failed. en-us Sat, 19 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Sep 2013 18:18:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156312 Penalty under section 15-A(1)(d) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act was held unsustainable because the department did not prove false disclosure of purchases or actual tax avoidance. Penalty proceedings were treated as quasi-criminal, so mens rea remained essential and the burden could not be shifted to the assessee by invoking section 12-A, which applies to assessment rather than penalty. The department was required to produce material showing that the disclosed purchases were unreliable and that tax had in fact been avoided. As the assessee was a recognised certificate holder under section 4-B and no tax was leviable on the purchases, the penalty basis failed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Sat, 19 Jan 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156312