https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168005 Penalty for interception of goods was sustained because the accompanying documents did not genuinely match the movement and destination of the goods, and the invoice did not support the consignee details later relied on by the assessee. The claimed additional place of business was registered much later, and the agreement relied upon did not clearly prove movement for demonstration or trial. On these facts, the authorities and Tribunal treated the transaction as an attempt to evade tax under the penalty provision, and their concurrent findings were not shown to be perverse or erroneous, so no substantial question of law arose. en-us Wed, 18 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Jan 2015 14:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168005 Penalty for interception of goods was sustained because the accompanying documents did not genuinely match the movement and destination of the goods, and the invoice did not support the consignee details later relied on by the assessee. The claimed additional place of business was registered much later, and the agreement relied upon did not clearly prove movement for demonstration or trial. On these facts, the authorities and Tribunal treated the transaction as an attempt to evade tax under the penalty provision, and their concurrent findings were not shown to be perverse or erroneous, so no substantial question of law arose. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 18 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168005