https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330793 Penalty under Section 54(1)(14) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 could not rest only on the omission to fill column 6 of Form-38. The seizure authority had noted that the goods were supported by accompanying documents, but the Tribunal did not examine that material and relied mainly on repeated non-filling of the form, treating the assessee as a habitual defaulter. Because the finding on whether the documents supported the transaction and whether intention to evade tax could be inferred was absent, the matter was remanded for a clear determination on evasion intent. en-us Wed, 03 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Aug 2016 17:27:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330793 Penalty under Section 54(1)(14) of the Uttar Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2008 could not rest only on the omission to fill column 6 of Form-38. The seizure authority had noted that the goods were supported by accompanying documents, but the Tribunal did not examine that material and relied mainly on repeated non-filling of the form, treating the assessee as a habitual defaulter. Because the finding on whether the documents supported the transaction and whether intention to evade tax could be inferred was absent, the matter was remanded for a clear determination on evasion intent. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Wed, 03 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330793