https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330952 Penalty under Section 15-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 required a recorded finding of conscious intent to evade tax. Mere discrepancy in Form-31 particulars, without examining whether the goods were duly accounted for or whether the omission was accompanied by tax-evading intent, was insufficient. The first appellate authority had found that the assessee had not attempted to evade tax, and a form filled in the name of another trader was treated as a bona fide mistake rather than wilful concealment. On that basis, the penalty was held unjustified. en-us Tue, 19 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Aug 2016 13:06:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330952 Penalty under Section 15-A of the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948 required a recorded finding of conscious intent to evade tax. Mere discrepancy in Form-31 particulars, without examining whether the goods were duly accounted for or whether the omission was accompanied by tax-evading intent, was insufficient. The first appellate authority had found that the assessee had not attempted to evade tax, and a form filled in the name of another trader was treated as a bona fide mistake rather than wilful concealment. On that basis, the penalty was held unjustified. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Tue, 19 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330952