https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161452 Penalty under section 29A(4) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act was held to require proof, after inquiry, of a conscious and definite attempt to evade tax; mere defects in transport documents or suspicion at the interception stage are insufficient. The court drew a clear distinction between detention of goods under section 29A(2), which may rest on improper or incomplete documents and suspicion of evasion, and penalty under section 29A(4), which depends on established evasion intent. As the goods had already suffered tax at the first sale, the transaction was a second sale, and no conscious attempt to evade tax was proved, the penalty orders were set aside. en-us Tue, 06 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Jan 2014 12:44:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161452 Penalty under section 29A(4) of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act was held to require proof, after inquiry, of a conscious and definite attempt to evade tax; mere defects in transport documents or suspicion at the interception stage are insufficient. The court drew a clear distinction between detention of goods under section 29A(2), which may rest on improper or incomplete documents and suspicion of evasion, and penalty under section 29A(4), which depends on established evasion intent. As the goods had already suffered tax at the first sale, the transaction was a second sale, and no conscious attempt to evade tax was proved, the penalty orders were set aside. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 06 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=161452