https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166363 Penalty under section 47(6) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act was unsustainable because the authorised officer had not recorded a conclusive finding, based on materials, that there was an actual attempt to evade tax. The statutory scheme allows detention and security demand on reasonable suspicion under section 47(2), but a separate enquiry under sections 47(5) and 47(6) is required before penalty can be imposed, and mere suspicion, inference, or an unsatisfactory explanation is insufficient. The writ petition was maintainable because the challenge went to the legality of the proceedings and the absence of the jurisdictional facts necessary for penalty. en-us Fri, 29 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Sep 2014 17:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166363 Penalty under section 47(6) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act was unsustainable because the authorised officer had not recorded a conclusive finding, based on materials, that there was an actual attempt to evade tax. The statutory scheme allows detention and security demand on reasonable suspicion under section 47(2), but a separate enquiry under sections 47(5) and 47(6) is required before penalty can be imposed, and mere suspicion, inference, or an unsatisfactory explanation is insufficient. The writ petition was maintainable because the challenge went to the legality of the proceedings and the absence of the jurisdictional facts necessary for penalty. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 29 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166363