https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166450 Concurrent findings that the seized goods did not match the documents produced at interception, and that the vehicle route, timing, and declared weight were inconsistent with the assessee's version, supported the conclusion that the goods were dealt with outside the regular records under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008. The HC held that such pure findings of fact did not justify interference in revisional jurisdiction under section 58 absent illegality or perversity. The Tribunal's reduction of the penalty was also treated as fair, and the penalty was left undisturbed. en-us Thu, 14 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:49:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166450 Concurrent findings that the seized goods did not match the documents produced at interception, and that the vehicle route, timing, and declared weight were inconsistent with the assessee's version, supported the conclusion that the goods were dealt with outside the regular records under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008. The HC held that such pure findings of fact did not justify interference in revisional jurisdiction under section 58 absent illegality or perversity. The Tribunal's reduction of the penalty was also treated as fair, and the penalty was left undisturbed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 14 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166450