https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158921 Penalty for failure to furnish Form No. 31 on imported purchases was not sustainable where the transactions were recorded in the books, the account books were verified, the tax liability had been discharged, and there was no intention to evade tax. The omission was treated as a technical lapse, and statutory penalty could not be imposed absent deliberate defiance of law, contumacy, dishonesty, or conscious disregard of the obligation. On these facts, the penalty under section 28-A read with section 15-A(1)(o) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 was held unjustified and liable to be quashed in favour of the assessee. en-us Wed, 08 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Nov 2013 12:53:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158921 Penalty for failure to furnish Form No. 31 on imported purchases was not sustainable where the transactions were recorded in the books, the account books were verified, the tax liability had been discharged, and there was no intention to evade tax. The omission was treated as a technical lapse, and statutory penalty could not be imposed absent deliberate defiance of law, contumacy, dishonesty, or conscious disregard of the obligation. On these facts, the penalty under section 28-A read with section 15-A(1)(o) of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 was held unjustified and liable to be quashed in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 08 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158921