https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337883 The court upheld the penalty imposed under Section 48(5) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act for tax evasion. The decision was based on evidence including interception of goods without proper documentation, discrepancies in records, and doubts about the genuineness of the transaction. The court emphasized the importance of proper documentation and intention to evade tax for invoking penalties under the Act. Despite the revisionist's challenges, the court found the authorities' findings and evidence sufficient, affirming their decision without interference in the revisional jurisdiction. en-us Fri, 06 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Jan 2017 07:23:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337883 The court upheld the penalty imposed under Section 48(5) of the U.P. Value Added Tax Act for tax evasion. The decision was based on evidence including interception of goods without proper documentation, discrepancies in records, and doubts about the genuineness of the transaction. The court emphasized the importance of proper documentation and intention to evade tax for invoking penalties under the Act. Despite the revisionist's challenges, the court found the authorities' findings and evidence sufficient, affirming their decision without interference in the revisional jurisdiction. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 06 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337883