https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167784 Where goods were intercepted in transit without supporting documents, the revisional authority could treat the omission, together with the unchallenged penalty order, as indicating evasion and justify estimation of turnover despite entries in the books of account. The Court noted that the explanation of a mere oversight was not substantiated by material, and the books did not displace the factual inference drawn from the surrounding circumstances. It further accepted that non-challenge to the penalty order could be relied on in sustaining turnover estimation under section 39(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. No substantial question of law arose, so the revisional order was left undisturbed. en-us Wed, 10 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Jan 2015 19:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167784 Where goods were intercepted in transit without supporting documents, the revisional authority could treat the omission, together with the unchallenged penalty order, as indicating evasion and justify estimation of turnover despite entries in the books of account. The Court noted that the explanation of a mere oversight was not substantiated by material, and the books did not displace the factual inference drawn from the surrounding circumstances. It further accepted that non-challenge to the penalty order could be relied on in sustaining turnover estimation under section 39(1) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003. No substantial question of law arose, so the revisional order was left undisturbed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 10 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167784