https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246205 Where a dealer disputed passing on the entry tax burden to customers and asserted payment from its own resources, forfeiture under Section 29(3) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act could not be sustained without examining the material facts. The counter affidavit failed to meet the material pleadings and proceeded on an incorrect understanding of the challenge. As the question whether the tax incidence had in fact been passed on required factual verification, the assessing authority was directed to reconsider the matter afresh and assess any material produced by the dealer. The earlier observation on forfeiture was not to prejudice the fresh proceedings, and the forfeiture order was set aside. en-us Wed, 16 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Apr 2014 17:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246205 Where a dealer disputed passing on the entry tax burden to customers and asserted payment from its own resources, forfeiture under Section 29(3) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act could not be sustained without examining the material facts. The counter affidavit failed to meet the material pleadings and proceeded on an incorrect understanding of the challenge. As the question whether the tax incidence had in fact been passed on required factual verification, the assessing authority was directed to reconsider the matter afresh and assess any material produced by the dealer. The earlier observation on forfeiture was not to prejudice the fresh proceedings, and the forfeiture order was set aside. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 16 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246205