https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168443 Incomplete Form 38, by itself, was held insufficient to justify penalty under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008. The Court reiterated that the earlier Division Bench view requiring a finding of intention to evade tax continued to apply under the VAT regime. It noted that an incomplete form may be relevant for seizure or detention of goods, but penalty under Section 54 requires notice, consideration of the material on record, an opportunity of hearing, and a recorded satisfaction that tax evasion was intended. The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory remedy before the authority. en-us Thu, 22 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Jun 2017 10:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168443 Incomplete Form 38, by itself, was held insufficient to justify penalty under the U.P. Value Added Tax Act, 2008. The Court reiterated that the earlier Division Bench view requiring a finding of intention to evade tax continued to apply under the VAT regime. It noted that an incomplete form may be relevant for seizure or detention of goods, but penalty under Section 54 requires notice, consideration of the material on record, an opportunity of hearing, and a recorded satisfaction that tax evasion was intended. The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory remedy before the authority. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 22 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168443