https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329946 Penalty under the U.P. VAT Act is not sustainable for a mere mismatch between the batch number or date of manufacture shown in the invoice and the goods loaded, where the VAT rules do not require disclosure of those particulars. Liability under Section 48(5) depends on omission from accounts, wrong particulars, or improper accounting, together with an intention to evade tax. On the stated facts, the goods were otherwise accounted for, the same tax rate applied regardless of batch details, and no finding of intent to evade tax was recorded. The note also states that reliance on a seizure-based precedent was misplaced because it arose in a different statutory context. en-us Tue, 12 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Mar 2017 16:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329946 Penalty under the U.P. VAT Act is not sustainable for a mere mismatch between the batch number or date of manufacture shown in the invoice and the goods loaded, where the VAT rules do not require disclosure of those particulars. Liability under Section 48(5) depends on omission from accounts, wrong particulars, or improper accounting, together with an intention to evade tax. On the stated facts, the goods were otherwise accounted for, the same tax rate applied regardless of batch details, and no finding of intent to evade tax was recorded. The note also states that reliance on a seizure-based precedent was misplaced because it arose in a different statutory context. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 12 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329946