https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249000 Penalty under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 for detention of goods was upheld where the documents supporting the movement of goods were found unreliable. Authorities noted two invoices with the same serial number and date issued from different branches, and rejected the dealer's explanation that the duplication was inadvertent use of another branch's stationery. Concurrent findings that the invoice discrepancy and branch mismatch indicated an attempt to evade tax were not shown to be perverse. The High Court therefore accepted the factual conclusions of the lower forums and sustained the penalty. en-us Mon, 31 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Jul 2015 11:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249000 Penalty under the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 for detention of goods was upheld where the documents supporting the movement of goods were found unreliable. Authorities noted two invoices with the same serial number and date issued from different branches, and rejected the dealer's explanation that the duplication was inadvertent use of another branch's stationery. Concurrent findings that the invoice discrepancy and branch mismatch indicated an attempt to evade tax were not shown to be perverse. The High Court therefore accepted the factual conclusions of the lower forums and sustained the penalty. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 31 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=249000