https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162455 A dealer claiming that a transaction was an agency arrangement or an inter-State sale must prove that claim with clear agreement, correspondence, authorisation, and supporting accounts. On the facts stated, the material did not establish a genuine agency relationship or an inter-State sale, and the transaction was treated as unaccounted purchase and resale attracting penalty. However, as there was no positive case of deliberate evasion, the penalty was moderated rather than imposed at full strength. The penalty was upheld in principle but reduced to 50 per cent of the amount originally levied, with the balance carrying applicable interest. en-us Thu, 17 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Feb 2014 17:48:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162455 A dealer claiming that a transaction was an agency arrangement or an inter-State sale must prove that claim with clear agreement, correspondence, authorisation, and supporting accounts. On the facts stated, the material did not establish a genuine agency relationship or an inter-State sale, and the transaction was treated as unaccounted purchase and resale attracting penalty. However, as there was no positive case of deliberate evasion, the penalty was moderated rather than imposed at full strength. The penalty was upheld in principle but reduced to 50 per cent of the amount originally levied, with the balance carrying applicable interest. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 17 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162455