https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329946 Penalty under the U.P. VAT Act cannot rest solely on a mismatch between invoice and goods batch numbers or manufacturing dates where VAT invoicing rules do not require those particulars. Section 48(5) requires omission, incorrect particulars, or improper accounting together with an intention to evade tax. Where goods are otherwise accounted for and the applicable tax rate does not vary by batch number or manufacturing date, the discrepancy does not establish a VAT contravention. A penalty also cannot be sustained without an evidence-based finding of intent to evade tax; conjecture regarding stock-register maintenance is insufficient. The penalty orders were set aside and the deposited amount was refundable. 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 cannot rest solely on a mismatch between invoice and goods batch numbers or manufacturing dates where VAT invoicing rules do not require those particulars. Section 48(5) requires omission, incorrect particulars, or improper accounting together with an intention to evade tax. Where goods are otherwise accounted for and the applicable tax rate does not vary by batch number or manufacturing date, the discrepancy does not establish a VAT contravention. A penalty also cannot be sustained without an evidence-based finding of intent to evade tax; conjecture regarding stock-register maintenance is insufficient. The penalty orders were set aside and the deposited amount was refundable. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 12 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329946