https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163435 Penalty under section 15A(1)(qq) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act requires strict proof that the dealer unauthorisedly realised tax, or an amount in the guise of tax, in contravention of section 8A(2)(b). Where the dealer collected amounts while an eligibility-certificate application under section 4A was pending, and the certificate was later granted with retrospective effect, the statutory breach was not clearly established and the quasi-criminal penalty could not stand. Alleged non-deposit of the realised amount did not cure the failure to prove the essential ingredients of the charge, so the penalty was unsustainable on the record. en-us Thu, 22 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Apr 2014 15:33:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163435 Penalty under section 15A(1)(qq) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act requires strict proof that the dealer unauthorisedly realised tax, or an amount in the guise of tax, in contravention of section 8A(2)(b). Where the dealer collected amounts while an eligibility-certificate application under section 4A was pending, and the certificate was later granted with retrospective effect, the statutory breach was not clearly established and the quasi-criminal penalty could not stand. Alleged non-deposit of the realised amount did not cure the failure to prove the essential ingredients of the charge, so the penalty was unsustainable on the record. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 22 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163435