https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166423 Penalty under section 15A(1)(o) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act was attracted by non-compliance with section 28A's import and transport requirements, and proof of an intention to evade tax was not a condition precedent to levy it. The seizure power under section 28A(6) was treated as a separate provision that depends on satisfaction of evasive intent and does not govern imposition of penalty for statutory breach. Mens rea was nevertheless relevant when fixing the amount of penalty, so the Tribunal's approach treating it as irrelevant for quantification was unsustainable. The penalty liability was upheld, but the amount was remitted for fresh determination with due regard to intention to evade tax. en-us Thu, 08 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166423 Penalty under section 15A(1)(o) of the U.P. Trade Tax Act was attracted by non-compliance with section 28A's import and transport requirements, and proof of an intention to evade tax was not a condition precedent to levy it. The seizure power under section 28A(6) was treated as a separate provision that depends on satisfaction of evasive intent and does not govern imposition of penalty for statutory breach. Mens rea was nevertheless relevant when fixing the amount of penalty, so the Tribunal's approach treating it as irrelevant for quantification was unsustainable. The penalty liability was upheld, but the amount was remitted for fresh determination with due regard to intention to evade tax. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 08 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166423