https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180651 Penalty under section 76(6) of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act was upheld because the Tax Board's conclusion rested on factual findings that the invoice and office copy were false and forged. The material difference in handwriting, the later preparation of the office copy, and the absence of the original invoice at interception were treated as findings of fact, not as a mere carbon-copy variation. In revision, interference was unwarranted because no illegality, perversity, or question of law arose from those findings. en-us Thu, 30 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 31 Mar 2016 10:39:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180651 Penalty under section 76(6) of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act was upheld because the Tax Board's conclusion rested on factual findings that the invoice and office copy were false and forged. The material difference in handwriting, the later preparation of the office copy, and the absence of the original invoice at interception were treated as findings of fact, not as a mere carbon-copy variation. In revision, interference was unwarranted because no illegality, perversity, or question of law arose from those findings. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Thu, 30 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180651