https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157780 Penalty under section 29A(4) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 could not be sustained without a clear finding that the owner of the goods attempted to evade tax due under the Act. Rule 35A(4)(b) likewise required a finding of attempted evasion in relation to the transaction during which the goods were transported. The authorities proceeded only on the basis that the vehicle was intercepted at a different place and did not examine the explanation for movement of the vehicle or record the statutory finding required by law. In the absence of that finding, the impugned orders were liable to be quashed. en-us Sat, 18 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Oct 2013 15:50:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157780 Penalty under section 29A(4) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 could not be sustained without a clear finding that the owner of the goods attempted to evade tax due under the Act. Rule 35A(4)(b) likewise required a finding of attempted evasion in relation to the transaction during which the goods were transported. The authorities proceeded only on the basis that the vehicle was intercepted at a different place and did not examine the explanation for movement of the vehicle or record the statutory finding required by law. In the absence of that finding, the impugned orders were liable to be quashed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Sat, 18 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157780