https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163402 Penalty under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act could not be sustained unless the empowered officer first called for supporting documents, examined the goods, and recorded a foundational finding that the goods were not properly accounted for and were therefore presumed to represent evaded tax. The impugned order failed to follow that statutory sequence, as it did not require the necessary verification, did not record the mandatory finding on unaccounted goods, and proceeded on unauthorized storage rather than the penal basis prescribed by the provision. The penalty order was quashed for non-compliance with Section 28(3A)(iv)(a), and liberty was reserved to proceed afresh in accordance with law. en-us Thu, 08 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Apr 2014 12:00:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163402 Penalty under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act could not be sustained unless the empowered officer first called for supporting documents, examined the goods, and recorded a foundational finding that the goods were not properly accounted for and were therefore presumed to represent evaded tax. The impugned order failed to follow that statutory sequence, as it did not require the necessary verification, did not record the mandatory finding on unaccounted goods, and proceeded on unauthorized storage rather than the penal basis prescribed by the provision. The penalty order was quashed for non-compliance with Section 28(3A)(iv)(a), and liberty was reserved to proceed afresh in accordance with law. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 08 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163402