https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162324 Issuing form IIIC(2) to a purchaser while knowing that no tax had actually been paid amounts to a false declaration that tax has been paid, attracting penalty under the anti-evasion provision of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. The commentary notes that the dealer's possession of an eligibility certificate and the fact that the form was obtained from the department did not negate liability, because the decisive fact was knowledge of non-payment. It further states that absence of mens rea was not sufficient to delete the penalty, and the penalty was treated as maintainable. en-us Tue, 02 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:58:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162324 Issuing form IIIC(2) to a purchaser while knowing that no tax had actually been paid amounts to a false declaration that tax has been paid, attracting penalty under the anti-evasion provision of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. The commentary notes that the dealer's possession of an eligibility certificate and the fact that the form was obtained from the department did not negate liability, because the decisive fact was knowledge of non-payment. It further states that absence of mens rea was not sufficient to delete the penalty, and the penalty was treated as maintainable. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 02 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162324